Author Archives

by

Repentance: Confess, Turn, Persevere

English: Manasseh's Sin and Repentance; as in ...Repentance: Confess, Turn, Persevere

James R. Aist

Introduction

“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

There is a belief within the Christian church that repentance from sins is not necessary for salvation. This belief is a heresy called “antinomianism” that can be traced back to the Pauline letters. Antinomianism holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace, moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation. What this heresy has right is that whatever the Bible calls “sin” is, in fact, sin. However, the denial of the need for repentance of that sin in order to go to heaven flies in the face of the biblical witness. John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter and Paul all taught that repentance is mandatory, not optional (Luke 13:1-5, Acts 13:24, Acts 26:20, 2 Peter 3:9).  In fact, Jesus began his ministry preaching repentance leading to salvation: “After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:14-16). After His ascension, Jesus prophesied that, going forward, repentance would be a requirement for the forgiveness of sins: “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,  and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Luke 24:46-47). Jesus came preaching repentance from sin, not acceptance of sin (Matthew 4:17; Mark 1:15; Luke 5:32), and He was still calling for repentance after his ascension into heaven (Revelation 2, 3). According to the Bible, repentance is for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4, Luke 24:27; Luke 24:46-47) and for salvation (Acts 11:8, Acts 20:21, 2 Peter 3:9). Because repentance is such an essential element in the salvation process, it is important to understand what genuine repentance really is and how it comes about.

Confess

The first step on the road to repentance is to agree with God that what you have done is wrong, i.e., that it is “sin” (1 John 1:9). This may be experienced as Godly sorrow and/or a change of heart regarding your sin (2 Corinthians 7:10, 1 Kings 8:46-47). As a result, you will feel compelled to confess in your mind and with your mouth that you have sinned (2 Samuel 12:12-13).

Turn

The second step on the road to repentance is to actually turn from your sin (2 Chronicles 7:14, Matthew 3:8, Acts 26:20). That means that you make a quality decision to stop doing the sinful thing you have been doing and then follow through on your decision and stop doing it. This is where the genuineness of your commitment to your decision is tested and proven; it’s the really hard part. We are all familiar with the phrase “Actions speak louder than words”, and Jesus said “By their fruits you will know them” (Matthew 7:20). Without turning, your confession is, at best, questionable and to no avail.

Persevere

The third and most rewarding step on the road to repentance is perseverance. It is common experience to be tempted to return to our old, sinful ways after we have turned from them. Unfortunately, it is also common experience to give in to such temptations by choosing to do so (James 1:13-14). But God will give us the strength to resist temptation when we submit ourselves to Him and resist the Devil (James 4:7). To really conquer sin means not only to confess and turn from it initially, but also to persevere in our repentance to the end.

Repentance Is a Process

When we become born-again, all of our past sins are instantly forgiven. We refer to that wholesale forgiveness event as “justification.”  But, sadly, we remain vulnerable to various temptations that can lead us to sin again (1 John 1:10). Over time, the Holy Spirit, with our cooperation, cleanses us from more and more of our remaining sins in a process called “sanctification”, whereby we are convicted of a residual sin, confess it (1 John 1:9), turn away from it and, eventually, conquer it. This is why we born-again Christians often detect sin in both ourselves and in our fellow believers, even though we are already “saved”; these are simply sins that we have not yet allowed the Holy Spirit to cleanse us of. The presence of such sins in our lives does not mean, necessarily, that we are not really saved; it may just mean that we are still a “work in progress.” So, let’s be patient and forgiving toward one another as we travel the road to repentance. It’s a busy and crowded road indeed!

Summary

“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus.” (Acts 3:19-20)

(For more articles on BIBLICAL TEACHINGS, click HERE)

by

Mental Health Organizations: Political Slaves of the Homosexual Movement

APA "gender identity disorder" prote...Mental Health Organizations: Political Slaves of the Homosexual Movement

James R. Aist

(Note: the numbers in parentheses refer to specific references listed at the end of the article)

 “It was never a medical decision — and that’s why I think the action came so fast… It was a political move.” “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.” — Barbara Gittings, Pro-homosexual Activist

Introduction

Homosexuality advocates like to appeal to position statements published by American mental health organizations to fortify their bogus claims concerning homosexuality issues. One would expect such professional groups to be a reliable source of unbiased information on such matters and that their official positions would be based on the most up-to-date and scientifically sound and objective research available. Unfortunately, where matters of homosexuality are concerned, this is not the case. Let’s take a look at how our mental health organizations have become political slaves of the homosexual movement.

The Take-over of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)

Beginning in the 1960s and continuing through the 1980s, radical homosexual activists (including both gays and straights sympathetic to the “gay agenda”), from within the organization and from without, conducted an organized campaign to transform the APA from a relatively open-minded, objective professional organization to a demonstrably biased, political mouthpiece for the homosexual movement (3, 7, 10). The most comprehensive and heavily documented record of these events — including numerous first-hand, published accounts — is a book (11) written by Ronald Bayer, a psychiatrist who is sympathetic with everything the homosexual activists did and applauded the ultimate outcome of their activities (3); these are published, historical facts. I will mention here a few of the most important developments in this campaign.

Using verbal bullying, physical violence, disruption and commandeering of meetings, and vicious verbal threats, they forced the APA to form a special committee to represent their radical political agenda and populated the committee with only like-minded, pro-homosexual members (3, 7, 8, 10, 11). They then proceeded to get homosexuality removed from the APA’s list of mental disorders, even though most of the APA members did not agree with that change. There were no new, scientific or clinical findings that precipitated this change; rather, it was predicated solely on the political agenda of the homosexuality activists. Witness, for example, the quote at the beginning of this article by Barbara Gittings, a pro-homosexual activist who was involved in the process: “It was never a medical decision — and that’s why I think the action came so fast… It was a political move.” “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.” (10). This campaign was an essential element of their scheme to remove the stigma that was associated with the designation of homosexuality as a mental disorder (3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11). Despite the mounds of published, historical documentation to the contrary, the APA still claims that the decision to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders was based solely on the results of scientific studies showing that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. This is nothing short of a transparent attempt to re-write the history of that decision-making process in order to make it appear that the decision was scientifically objective and medically appropriate. Homosexuality advocates, and the APA itself, most often cite a research article published by Evelyn Hooker in 1957 as proof that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but that article has been exposed as a blatant example of pseudo-science at its worst (9); the research breaks almost every standard of proper scientific process and inquiry that can produce reliable and valid conclusions. This is a good example of the disregard that the APA has for properly conducted, objective scientific research where homosexuality is concerned.

The Campaign Mushrooms

Having accomplished this first major milestone in their campaign, the homosexual activists then proceeded to other objectives within the APA. They began to develop pro-homosexual position statements that they forced the APA to endorse and publish over the succeeding years, without regard to published scientific and clinical studies to the contrary (1, 2, 3, 7, 8). They developed and carried out a related campaign to threaten, intimidate, disenfranchise and even bring lawsuits against APA members and their institutions who provided therapy and counseling treatment to dissatisfied homosexual people who came to them seeking help to change their sexual preference (6). Eventually, they managed to limit officially approved professional therapy for homosexuals to only those approaches that affirm the homosexual orientation of their clients and help them to feel good about it. And, using overt threats to repeat their treatment of the APA, they forced other mental health organizations, such as the American Psychological Association, to give in to their demands and follow the political path taken by the APA (3, 5, 7, 8, 10). Needless to say, it didn’t take long for our other medical and health organizations to fall into line and adopt similar positions regarding homosexuality (7, 8, 10).

The End Result

Now let’s fast-forward to 2013. Where matters of homosexuality are concerned, both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association are controlled and dominated by radical, extremely biased, homosexual activists, many, if not most, of whom are openly practicing homosexuals themselves. Objectivity, scientific principles, factual evidence and honesty have taken a back seat to pro-homosexual political objectives (3, 4, 5, 9).

My point

It is fair to say that, at this point in time, one cannot rely on either of these professional societies to provide objective, scientifically sound and up-to-date viewpoints concerning many aspects of homosexuality. So, don’t be fooled when homosexuality advocates appeal to position statements of either of these organizations to support their pro-homosexual arguments; their sources are politically motivated, radical homosexual activists who simply cannot be trusted to be either objective or truthful.

(For more of my articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

References Cited

1. Aist, J.R. 2012. Are Homosexual People Really “Born Gay”?  (click HERE)

2. Aist, J.R. 2012. Homosexuality: Good News!  (click HERE)

3. Dannemeyer, W. 1989. Shadow in the Land, Homosexuality in America. Ignatius Press, San Francisco. Pp. 21-39.

4. Hale, M. 2012. CORRECTED: APA considers eliminating gender identity disorder, replace with ‘gender dysphoria’.  (click HERE)

5. Hoffman, M.C. 2012. Former President of APA Says Organization Controlled by ‘Gay Rights’ Movement. (click HERE)

6. Sorba, R. 2007. The Born Gay Hoax. Chapter 13. Intimidating Reparative Therapists. Pp. 80-87. (click HERE)

7. Sorba, R. 2012. Homosexuality and Mental Health. (click HERE)

8. Whitehead, N.E. and B.K. Whitehead. 2012. My Genes Made Me Do It. Introduction. (click HERE)

9. Landess, T. The Evelyn Hooker Study and the Normalization of Homosexuality. (click HERE)

10. Sorba, R. 2007. The Intimidation of the American Psychiatric Association. The “Born Gay” Hoax. Chapter 7. Pp. 20-27.  (click HERE)

11. Bayer, R. 1981. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis.  Basic Books, Inc., New York. Pp. 101-154.

by

The Corn Flake Camouflage Caper

English: Oatmeal and cornflakes Christmas cook...The Corn Flake Camouflage Caper

James R. Aist

When I was growing up in rural Arkansas, there were five or six of us kids in the household at any one time, and two parents. We were relatively poor, but never destitute. Poor meant that where food was concerned, nothing was wasted, not even stale, soggy corn flakes. Now, corn flakes was just about the cheapest dry cereal available at the time, so Mama would buy several of the over-sized boxes of them at a time, especially if they were on sale. This was a successful strategy to stretch our precious few dollars, but it contained the seeds of its own destruction. The breaking point came after we had been offered nothing but corn flakes for breakfast for about three or four weeks running, and it was made clear that it was going to be only corn flakes until our stock of the golden morsels was depleted. Mama was trying to use up her stockpile of corn flakes before they got too stale and soggy. We kids were sympathetic to her cause, but the thought of corn flakes again was more than we could stomach…literally. And it was already too late; the corn flakes were now officially stale and soggy. It was time to take a stand.

So, we kids talked it over and, with great trepidation, we “announced” to Mama at the next breakfast that we were not going to eat any more corn flakes for the foreseeable future, and especially not stale and soggy ones. I think that Mama was a bit amused that we would conspire to rebel over such a seemingly trivial issue, and so she purposed in her heart to feign compliance while all the time plotting to turn the tables on our little rebellion. The challenge had been issued and Mama was more than happy to take us on. This trivial dispute was to become a friendly competition thoroughly enjoyed by both sides as the drama unfolded over the ensuing weeks.

Suddenly we were enjoying other choices for breakfast and were becoming convinced that our solidarity against the powers that be had been wonderfully rewarded. Then we began to notice something a little strange about some of the side dishes at our family meals. Could it be that there were now corn flakes, of all things, in the meatloaf? We compared notes with each other, and sure enough…corn flakes in the meatloaf! We laughed out loud. That really was clever of her, albeit thoroughly sneaky. Now we were engaged in a game of subterfuge and camouflage with Mama, and it was delightful. So, in a spirit of levity, we declared “OK, we’re on to you; there’s corn flakes in the meatloaf, and we’re not eating any more cornflakes!” With a sly, coy smile, Mama replied, “We’ll see about that.”

And that seemed to be the end of it. That is, until the cornbread looked a little funny one day…but what is that? What are those strange, yellowish, orange things in the cornbread? Aha! Corn flakes in the cornbread; don’t anybody eat the cornbread! And on and on it went: first, corn flakes in the meatloaf; then, corn flakes in the cornbread; then, corn flakes in the oatmeal; then, corn flakes in the cookies; and so on. It was a fight to the finish. Mama was determined to make us eat the stale, soggy cornflakes, one way or another, until they were all gone, and we were equally determined to sniff them out and refuse to be outsmarted, until dear old Mama ran out of clever and creative ideas to disguise them. Finally, Mama called for a truce, and we all shared a hearty laugh or two over the corn flake camouflage caper. Truth be told, I kind of hated to see it come to an end; it was fun while it lasted.

(For more articles on TRUE TALES, click HERE)

by

“Do Not Judge”: What’s That Supposed to mean?

Gavel & Stryker“Do Not Judge”: What’s That Supposed to mean?

 James R. Aist

Introduction

Born-again Christians who are proclaiming the truths of God’s Word are increasingly being accused, especially by unbelievers, of judging them, against the admonition of Jesus, “Do not judge”, as if Christians are not allowed, much less instructed, to judge anyone or anything, ever. But, is that really what Jesus meant? Is that a valid accusation, or is it merely a ploy to mislead us and keep us from speaking out on current moral issues, so that they can freely contend for their version of moral truth without opposition? Let’s have a look at what Jesus really meant when he said “Do not judge.”

The Relevant Verses in Context

The Bible records this monologue in two different gospels:

Matthew 7:1-6 says, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces”.

Luke 6: 37-42 says “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” He also told them this parable: “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit? The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

Obviously, these are two similar versions of the same teachings. Jesus is not saying here that Christians are never to judge the actions of others, in the sense of pointing out that those actions are against the will of God. What He is saying is that we must first remove sin from our own lives so that we can clearly perceive God’s will regarding the sinfulness of certain actions or behaviors that we see in others. Moreover, He is warning us against sharing such insights with those who will not be receptive (e.g., people who have not been born-again and, therefore, do not have “ears to hear”), lest they turn on you and rip into you verbally (e.g., by accusing you of violating Jesus’ instruction to not judge others!). So, in reality, Jesus is not telling us to refrain from judging the actions and behaviors of ourselves and others; rather, He is telling us to get our own spiritual act together before we do that, so that our words can faithfully represent God’s view and achieve the intended purpose when we do it.

What Does the Word “Judge” Really Mean As Used in the Bible?

When you find the word “judge”, or its derivatives, used in the Bible in reference to people, it usually refers to condemnation of them per se, as persons. We can see this in the passage above where Jesus clarifies what He means by “Do not judge” by following that with “Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned” (Luke 6:37). And the Bible strictly forbids us from judging, or condemning, people, at least for the time being. That kind of judgment is strictly reserved for God Himself (Romans 14:10-12; James 4:12). We are also not to draw conclusions about (i.e., judge) the motives of others, as that is something that only God can do (Proverbs 16:2; 1 Corinthians 4:5). However, we are to form Godly opinions about the morality of human actions and behaviors, whether they are seen in ourselves or in others. This is how we form a Godly conscience that enables us to hate what is evil and love what is good, as the Bible commands us to do (Psalm 34:14; Amos 5:15; Romans 12:9). In doing this, however, we are simply agreeing with God’s view of these things, nothing else and nothing more. But, unfortunately, when verbalized, this can be mistakenly perceived as “judging” others, in violation of Jesus’ command.

As Christians, we are called to do some things with boldness and gentleness, and that includes “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). We are instructed in the Bible to speak of evil as “evil” (Isaiah 5:20) and to actively expose evil (Ephesians 5:11). The purpose and motive for doing this should be different regarding unbelievers versus believers. We are to preach and teach against what God calls evil for the repentance and salvation of unbelievers (Matthew 5:19; Matthew 24:14; Mark 16:15; Acts 10:42; Romans 10:14-14; Romans 15:15-16) and for the repentance and cleansing of believers (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Colossians 1:28; Romans 15:14; 1 Timothy 5:17; 2 Timothy 4:2). But this should never be done as a means of condemning others or making ourselves feel better about our own residual unrighteousness. Thus, it is imperative that we first examine our motives before we undertake to “speak the truth in love” to someone else!

What Role Will Christians Have, If Any, in the Final Judgments?

The answer to this question will be a big surprise to many, Christians and unbelievers alike. According to the Bible, born-again Christians will be called upon to assist Jesus Himself (John 5:22, 27) in judging the angels and “the world” (i.e., unbelievers) (1 Corinthians 6:2-3)! In view of the teachings of Jesus in Matthew Chapter 7 and Luke Chapter 6, discussed above, it behooves us born-again Christians all the more to cleanse ourselves from all unrighteousness. Now that’s a sobering reality for those of us who are striving to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12)!

Conclusions

According to the Bible, born-again Christians are not to judge other people in the sense of condemning them per se. This task is reserved for God, for the time being. Under some circumstances, it is admissible to “speak the truth in love” regarding sinful actions and behaviors in order to help someone see the error of their ways, but this should be done only with the proper motives and with gentleness and respect. We are called, as God’s elect, to proclaim the truths of the Word of God in order to enlighten believers and unbelievers alike, according to their ability to receive the truth. In doing this, we must not let unbelievers intimidate or silence us with false accusations against “judging” others; they are misrepresenting the words of Jesus, and we should not listen to them. And finally, according to the Bible, born-again Christians will participate with Jesus in the final judgment of  the angels and unbelievers. Therefore, we should work diligently while there is still time left, to prepare ourselves for that daunting task.

(For more articles on BIBLICAL TEACHINGS, click HERE)