www.theologyreview.co.uk

Mark Jones #fundie theologyreview.co.uk

If you’re reading this post, you may be well aware of the ongoing pressure to conform and accept anything other than heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage and to affirm it. This is well known to the Christian community today, particularly through things such as the heavily publicised Asher’s Bakery lawsuit, and Tony Campolo’s heavily debated open letter about homosexuality almost two years ago. But in the last day, a new Facebook seems to be getting started.

I woke up this morning to a notification on Facebook of someone who goes around on various Christian Facebook pages for the purposes of trolling having posted a gay pride GIF on a public post of mine. Generally my posts are only available to be viewed by my friends and are not public, but certain posts are public and it is those posts that have been targeted.

This short post has been written to flag this up for any Christians out there who read this and may possibly encounter this. If this happens to you, I would encourage you to delete the post. It’s really just a means for these trolling characters to try and push your buttons and make you react, don’t give in to them. Just delete the post. You don’t need that kind of attention on your personal profile.

Sometime in the future I will be releasing a post on sexuality which will aim to look at the possible reasons from this kind of behaviour, as it is also seen in some Christians as well unfortunately. But for now, keep your eyes peeled and don’t let you personal profile be overrun with trolls posting these GIF’s on your personal profile. It’s just a means to take a stab at you and your beliefs.

Mark Jones #fundie theologyreview.co.uk

As I was going through my news feed a couple of weeks ago I came across a status shared about the recent statements from Jacob Rees-Mogg on ITV’s show Good Morning Britain.

For those who may not know, Jacob Rees-Mogg is a British Politician who was first elected as the MP for North East Somerset in the 2010 General Election. Mogg is a member of the Conservative party, and also happens to be a Catholic. That last note is important for the story here — as it comes up in quite a key way.

Mogg has been touted as some as a possible candidate of Prime Ministership. However, he has recently come against some flack due to his apparent extreme views.

But what exactly are those extreme views?

To answer the raised question, let’s first take a look at Mogg had to say on Good Morning Britain.

If you watched the clip in its entirety, you will sharp see that Morgan and his co-host Susanna Reid hone in on two issues. Those issues being same-sex marriage and abortion.

Mogg said on the subject of same-sex marriage that he sides with the teaching of the Catholic Church. On the subject of abortion, he said that it is wrong and indefensible.

It is these two subjects that have been touted as “extreme views”. This kind of argumentation is unfortunately common in the media today if you do not agree with what pop culture determines as being good and appropriate you’re “extreme” or a “bigot”. Is this really correct? Absolutely not! In reality, it’s a bit of a joke.

To further unpack this controversy let’s take a look at the words of Iain Rowan in his short statement on the subject for iNews.

Iain Rowan on Jacob Rees Mogg
In his iNews article, Rowan says the following about Mogg’s views:

“Jacob Rees-Mogg justifies his opposition to gay marriage and abortion even in cases of rape on the basis of his firmly held Christian beliefs. Fine. One can admire people with principles based on profound belief. So where is his opposition to welfare cuts on the grounds that Jesus went out of his way to demonstrate his compassion for the poor and the lame, the lepers and the prostitutes? When Jesus says “blessed are the peacemakers”, how does that fit with Rees-Mogg’s record of consistently voting for military intervention? Where are his statements on debates about executive pay, reminding other MPs that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven? I’m confused: I thought being a committed Christian meant following the teachings and actions of Jesus, rather than standing at the pick-and-mix counter in a sweet shop, only choosing the fizzy snakes.”

Now let’s take this statement for what it is. It is an accusation of an inconsistent faith. Now I don’t know where Rowan stands in terms of the Christian faith, however, if we’re honest, nine times out of ten the accusers of inconsistency are inconsistent themselves. We’ll address that soon.

The key things that Rowan points out are found in Mogg’s voting record (which can be found here). Those things being his voting history on welfare cuts, military intervention, and executive pay. When you watch the video from Good Morning Britain you should notice instantly that these questions were never raised, and I honestly doubt that they were even considered. Why? Probably because Mogg’s voting history on those issues would be much more reasonable to a sizeable portion of the public. In terms of those issues, do you know which of these were party votes? Honestly, I don’t. If they weren’t party votes, then there are questions we can ask about why Moggs would vote in the way he has on these issues. But we will ultimately have to ask the question is the reason why he voted in the way he did consistent with the Christian faith, and in this case, with the teachings of the Catholic church?

The reality is that us as readers, and for me as a writer, we do not know the reasons as to why Mogg has voted the way he has. So we are not in a position to make an accurate conclusion as to whether he is being consistent with the teachings of the Bible and the Catholic church here. But that leads us onto a bigger question.

Are We Ever as Consistent as We Should Be?
The issue at hand here is consistency. Let’s put Mogg’s stance on same-sex marriage and abortion to the side. If we’re honest these raised issues are a smokescreen from the media in what seems to be a growing agenda to get Christians out of politics (remember Tim Farron?). The issue at its core is consistency.

So, let’s ask ourselves the question, are we ever as consistent as we should be?

The answer for most of us if we’re brutally honest with ourselves, is a resounding no! Or maybe that’s just me.

I myself am far from perfect, I wrestle with scripture all the time. I struggle with pride, all too often thinking I’m much more important than I am (I’m usually humbled very quickly). I struggle with unbelief, I often ask questions that lead me to wonder whether Christianity is ultimately true (that is also very quickly done away with). I could go on. But the point here is that I’m not as consistent as I should be, and without sounding harsh, you’re probably not either.

So why is Mogg’s consistency the issue here? Is it because he’s being inconsistent, or is it because many want him to be inconsistent if it appeases the cultural expectations. Honestly, I suspect it may be the latter. Inconsistency only seems to be an issue currently if it’s inconsistent with the expectations of pop culture. See if Mogg was as vocal about issues surrounding nuclear defence and money as he is about abortion and same-sex marriage, this story wouldn’t even be hitting the news. The issue that people seem to have with Mogg is that he is against what people want him to be for. It’s a case of inconsistency when he doesn’t vote the way that those objecting to him want him to vote.

So let’s consider this as we close off this short article. Why is Mogg being targeted here? Is it because he won’t be a good Prime Minister, that he’s not fit to run this country? No! It’s because he does not side with what the media thinks he should side with, and what the members of the public have bought when they’ve been told what to think. That’s it! It really is as simple as that.

So before you dive onto the bandwagon and write off Mogg as a potential Prime Minister. Think about why you’re being asked to do so, and ask yourself whether this is right or not. The answer may surprise you.

Mark Jones #fundie theologyreview.co.uk

Earlier this week I wrote and released an article for Theology Review entitled The Importance of Standing Firm Upon God’s Word. Throughout this week I have met criticism due to my views on the issue of same-sex marriage and LGBT. This led to making the decision to delete the post and start again. I was also met with criticism for doing this, despite the fact that ultimately it is my responsibility to manage my social profiles and pages.

This criticism has even gone so far as to label my response as “censorship”. So I want to use this quick post to address this issue, and ask the question, is Theology Review censoring people.

Is Theology Review Censoring People?
The answer to this is a resounding no. But let’s look at this a little more shall we?

On a practical level, the comments that anyone makes on a social media site is the responsibility of those that manage it. So in terms of my social media sites, it is ultimately myself who bears that responsibility. With this being the case it is up to me to judge whether comments and content are appropriate for the world to see.

This week a comments thread got out of hand with the majority of people, including myself, talking in a manner that was not fruitful, nor appropriate. This is exactly why I made the announcement on Thursday that any posts related to TR material would now be filtered through the comments policy that we use here on the website.

As was expected, this made those harsh commenters (and their supporters) a little bit mad. This was always going to be the case. As I knew that as soon as I made that decision, I was going to get complaints from people saying things such as “well I didn’t breach those terms”. In reality, it is me as the lead for TR to determine whether anybody (including myself) has breached those terms.

But the question here is, is Theology Review censoring people.

As stated earlier on, the answer to this is no. All too often in the 21st century, we will throw words around without thinking about what they actually mean. Censorship at its core is about silencing anything that does not conform to what’s expected, or should I say, what is desired to be expected.

In terms of the decision to start using the comments policy to gauge whether comments should be allowed on social media posts. It is certainly far from being about not allowing comments I don’t agree with. It is all about not allowing comments that will not lead to a healthy and fruitful discussion that reflects Christ. This will also go for my own comments as well as anybody else’s.

So no, Theology Review is not censoring anybody. What we are doing is putting needed principles in place to ensure that discussions can be a blessing and not a problem.

Mark Jones #fundie theologyreview.co.uk

Over the weekend I was involved in a conversation revolving around the release of The Nashville Statement (you can read the article on that here). Due to the subject nature of the statement, the conversation got pretty heated. And unfortunately, some shots were fired in my direction. This conversation reminded me greatly of the importance of standing firm upon God’s word, hence the title of this article.

The intent of this article is to in no way show the shots that were thrown my way for what they were. But to encourage the readers of this site to stand firm on God’s word, even if that makes us unpopular and sometimes even hated. A grim reality of the times we’re living in is that if we as Christians do not acquiesce to the opinions of those who sit on the more liberal side of the fence, we will be loathed. We will be told that we are not “loving” or are “taking scripture out of context”, two things that I was accused of with no evidence (I requested a defence of these accusations that was based in scripture, and they never came). It is an unfortunate reality, but it is one that we must be prepared to face.

We were warned about this by the Apostle Paul in his second letter to Timothy, particularly in 2 Timothy 4:3-4. Yet just one verse later in 2 Timothy 4:5 we are reminded of the importance of standing firm upon God’s word. It is this encouragement that I want to use for the core of this article.

But first, let me offer up some context for the reason for writing this article.

Why I Am Writing This Article

As already stated, this article comes out of a discussion I was involved in over the weekend on Facebook in relation to the release of The Nashville Statement. A discussion that became unnecessarily heated.

I won’t go into too much detail on the conversation as I don’t think that is fair to the people involved. But what I will say is that I got involved in this discussion by adding in a Biblically accurate defence for the understanding that both Jesus and Paul did address the issue of homosexuality during their ministries.

I met some very harsh opposition from two people in particular, due to the fact that I was willing to stand firm on God’s word, unlike them who wanted a more “loving” response, meaning a response compromising my integrity as a Christian. At one point I was told that I should not be pursuing full-time ministry due to not affirming the LGBT choice of lifestyle. Needless to say, I found this rather hurtful and unnecessary, whilst at the same time being fairly comical. The conversation was ended when I was blocked on Facebook by the original poster after they accused me of being unbiblical and ungodly. For both of these strong accusations, a defence was requested, one was never made.

This altercation really reminded me of the urgent need to commit to doing some solid Biblical teaching on subjects like this. This is because the unfortunate reality seems to be that without this said solid Biblical teaching, many people will start to conform to the patterns of this world, something we’re warned not to do in Romans 12:2.

It is this desire to bring in some solid Biblical teaching on the subject that I want to use as the basis for the remainder of the article.

How Can We Stand Firm Upon God’s Word Today?

Now just to offer a bit of a preamble to this section here. I subscribe to what we would call reformed theology. In a nutshell, reformed theology has a high view of both God and scripture. Believing in the sovereignty of God, the authority of scripture, and salvation by grace alone. If you want a bit more information on reformed theology, Got Questions have put together a good introduction to it on their website. So some people may call be a fundamentalist (I was in the altercation), but I’m OK with that. Because I believe in the fundamental truths of scripture. Plus between you and me, if you ever get called a fundamentalist or a “fundie”, it’s always a dig from people who compromise on scripture for the sake of their opinion. But let’s get back to the question at hand.

How can we stand firm upon God’s word today? The answer to this is relatively simple actually, it’s the outworking of that answer that can get complicated. We stand firm upon God’s word today by refusing to compromise to the truths that God has revealed to us in scripture. So that’s the simple part.

The complicated part is the outworking of this.See, it’s all too easy to consider compromising scripture. Let’s take the example of you having a gay friend (it’s an appropriate example considering the reason for writing this article), many people would feel it’s more “loving” or more “Christ-like” to affirm their lifestyle.

See, it’s all too easy to consider compromising scripture. Let’s take the example of you having a gay friend (it’s an appropriate example considering the reason for writing this article), many people would feel it’s more “loving” or more “Christ-like” to affirm their lifestyle. The issue with this is that the Bible clearly defines this lifestyle as sinful, and Jesus gives clear instruction that once someone is forgiven, that they are to go and sin no more (John 8:11). However, unfortunately, pop culture has decided that our identity as a person is found in our sexuality, whereas as Christians our identity should be found in Christ (Galatians 2:20).

We have to always remember that Jesus is at the very core of what we do. It is upon the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and His resurrection from the dead by God that we receive true salvation (Romans 10:9). And it is the on the revelation that Jesus is the Messiah in which He has decided to build His Church, we see Peter confirm Jesus as Messiah in Matthew 16:16 and Jesus’ statement that this is the grounding of the Church in Matthew 16:18. So it is Jesus Christ who is at the center of the Church, not man, and we must always be mindful of that.

We must also remember that God has breathed out His word, He has inspired it, and therefore it is inclusive of the authority of God, we see this in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. This is not to say that the Bible is higher in authority than God, but it is on the same level, as the Bible is the chosen tool of God that He reveals His will and direction for our lives through. So as Christians we should never put the Bible to the side. Neither should we come up with silly arguments such as we should focus on Jesus’ teachings, despite the fact that Jesus’ teachings are all found in the Bible.

A conscious decision must be made by us as believers to follow the instruction that Christ has laid out for us in His word. We are told in Psalm 119:89 that His word is settled forever in heaven. This means that we have no right to change the doctrine that Christ has laid out for us through His word, no right to change it at all. We need to decide to fall in line with scripture, whether we agree with it or not. God is the final authority here, not us.

I cannot stress that last point enough, God is the final authority here, not us.

So the question then becomes, if God is the final authority, not us, how does that affect how we should interpreate scripture? That is a question for our next article.

A Closing Encouragement

Before we close I wanted to give a brief encouragement to those who desire to stay true to scripture. At times doing this can be very difficult, sometimes we’ll face opposition from Christians who think they’re doing right by God and others. What we need to remember is that Jesus has told us that if we truly love Him, then we are to keep His commands (John 14:15, John 14:23). God’s desire for us is to ultimately give Him all the glory, and we do this by honouring what He has commanded us to do in His word — the Bible.

So if you encounter hostility in doing this, remember that Jesus met this same hostility, and take comfort in the fact that we have already been forewarned that this would happen.

In this encounter over the week, the original poster mentioned that I should be forgiven because I didn’t know what I was doing (lots of Biblically inaccurate overtones there). However, I did know what I was doing, and it was standing firm upon God’s word. It will always be my intention to do this, I hope you will share in that with me.

Mark Jones #fundie #homophobia theologyreview.co.uk

So yesterday I was on Facebook and numerous articles came across my news feed, all relating to someone I’ve had a lot of respect for over the years, that is Eugene Peterson. For those who don’t know who Peterson is, he is best known for his work in putting together one of the world’s most popular paraphrase Bibles, The Message. The Message came in at number 10 of the most popular Bible translations of 2016 according to Nielson. Because of the success of The Message, Peterson has long been in the public eye. But this past week he has come under a little scrutiny because of an article that was released by Religion News Service entitled Eugene Peterson on Changing His Mind About Same-Sex Issues and Marriage.

However, as with most stories that come out on the internet, there’s a little more to this story than meets the eye, so let’s investigate and try to get to the bottom of this issue that has the Christian online world in a bit of a storm. Let’s dig in shall we.

The RNS Article

The article is quite interesting, the contributor Jonathan Merritt introduces the piece by saying he wants to investigate Peterson’s views on homosexuality and gay marriage, as it is a very hot topic in the world today. This is certainly the case when you look at the way the world is today.

The question Merritt asks Peterson is interesting here, as is Peterson’s response. The question asked is what is the morality of same-sex relationships, and has your view changed on this over the years? Below is Peterson’s response to the question.

...

“In my own congregation — when I left, we had about 500 people — I don’t think we ever really made a big deal out of it. When I left, the minister of music left. She’d been there ever since I had been there. There we were, looking for a new minister of music. One of the young people that had grown up under my pastorship, he was a high school teacher and a musician. When he found out about the opening, he showed up in church one day and stood up and said, “I’d like to apply for the job of music director here, and I’m gay.” We didn’t have any gay people in the whole congregation. Well, some of them weren’t openly gay. But I was so pleased with the congregation. Nobody made any questions about it. And he was a really good musician.”

Peterson closes his answer by saying:

“I wouldn’t have said this 20 years ago, but now I know a lot of people who are gay and lesbian and they seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do. I think that kind of debate about lesbians and gays might be over. People who disapprove of it, they’ll probably just go to another church. So we’re in a transition and I think it’s a transition for the best, for the good. I don’t think it’s something that you can parade, but it’s not a right or wrong thing as far as I’m concerned.”

One thing to be immediately aware of here is that Peterson answer does not actually bring Scripture into play, but solely focuses on his experience with people who are of a homosexual persuasion who identify themselves as believers in Christ. Peterson also states that this would not have been his answer 20 years ago, the question is why? This is an assumption, but here’s my guess, gay marriage was not being pushed down the throats of society in 1997, whereas it is now.

Merritt then follows this initial question up with the question of would you ever perform a same-sex wedding ceremony, Peterson’s answer is YES.

This response has led to many Christian outlets writing response pieces on this. Including The Gospel Coalition, Church Leaders, and Christianity Today.

However, that is not the end of the story here, as Peterson has since retracted his comment on performing a same-sex marriage.

Peterson’s Retraction in the Washington Post

In an article released yesterday (13 July) entitled Popular Author Eugene Peterson: Actually, I Would Not Perform a Gay Marriage, Peterson retracted his comments on being willing to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony, saying.

“When put on the spot by this particular interviewer, I said yes in the moment. But on further reflection and prayer, I would like to retract that.”

Peterson says a lot more on the subject than this, so I would encourage you to read the full article as we won’t be covering every detail covered in the retraction story. However, Peterson did clarify what his view on homosexuality and gay marriage was in the following statement:

“To clarify, I affirm a biblical view of marriage: one man to one woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything.”

Peterson carries on with this:

“When I told this reporter that there are gay and lesbian people who “seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do,” I meant it. But then again, the goodness of a spiritual life is functionally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. We are saved by faith through grace that operates independent of our resolve or our good behavior. It operates by the hand of a loving God who desires for us to live in grace and truth and who does not tire of turning us toward both grace and truth. There have been gay people in a variety of congregations, campuses, and communities where I have served. My responsibility to them was the work of a pastor—to visit them, to care for their souls, to pray for them, to preach the Scriptures for them.”

Peterson closes the statement by saying that he regrets the confusion caused by the interview, this coming on the back of the statement earlier in the article that he prefers questions ahead of time to allow him to prepare appropriately for the interview that is to come.

RNS responded to this in an article released yesterday entitled Eugene Peterson Backtracks on Same-Sex Marriage. The article basically goes down the line that Peterson’s retraction is yet another blow to those who identify themselves as gay Christian’s and that God doesn’t love them any less because yet another prominent voice in the Church has stated that they do not affirm same-sex marriage.

Peterson’s retraction also came on the heels of Lifeway Christian Stores saying that they were considering pulling Peterson’s work out of its stores due to Peterson’s apparent new view on same-sex marriage.

So with all this information, and more in the sources linked below, what are we to make of the comments of Peterson on the subject of homosexuality and is it even relevant?

Getting to Grips With All of This

The honest answer to this subject is that there is no straightforward answer that will please everybody. However, on the question of is this relevant, the answer is a resounding yes.

A number of weeks ago I came across a comment on a Facebook thread about homosexuality, where a commenter asked: “Why are Christian’s so obsessed with homosexuality and gay marriage”? I responded to that question by saying that we are no more “obsessed” with the subject than those who are for homosexuality and gay marriage are. In fact, if you look deep into the debate, most of the time Christian’s are responding to something on the subject, not actively seeking out ways to predicate our view.

The hard truth is that the Bible does not affirm homosexuality, people can argue that Jesus never directly talks about homosexuality and therefore does not have a view on the subject, and therefore we should be “more like Jesus”. However, this argument is an argument from silence and is extremely lacking. For starters it ignores what Jesus says about marriage, that is to be between one man and one woman (a la the book of Genesis), and it also fails to have done a strong investigation on Jesus’ last days’ prophecy, which seems to include a reference to gay marriage in it. So, in reality, Jesus may very well have addressed gay marriage, without using the words gay marriage.

This may upset people who are wanting God to affirm this lifestyle for any reason. However to get the Bible to do this would require the altering of doctrine, ignoring God’s instruction in His word, or manipulating that said instruction to make it what those who want this affirming to say. But I do need to be blunt here and say that homosexuality is just like any other sin noted in scripture, the only real difference between homosexuality and any other sin is the mainstream attention it gets and the twitching ears who listen to big-name “Christian’s” who support same-sex marriage and homosexuality.

The fact of the matter is that as Christian’s it is not our responsibility to judge on this issue, and I mean judge in the Biblical sense of pronouncing a punishment on someone, that’s God’s job, not ours. We are to teach people the word and show what God says on the subject in a manner that is full of grace and truth. It’s like the cliche says, we are called to love the sinner, not the sin. There is a vast difference between saying that God says what someone is up to is a sin, and saying they heinous and full of sin. Because without the grace of God we are all heinous and full of sin.

Whatever your views of Peterson’s comments are, people need to know the love of God and the truth of His word. This means that we shouldn’t cave to societal pressure that tells us that tolerance is affirmation and acceptance, rather than what it actually means. As Christian’s we need to let the love of God be what stands out, and that is a love that is so loving it tells people the truth.

What do you think about Peterson’s recent comments? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

Mark Jones is the Lead Writer at Theology Review. Mark is currently studying theology at Spurgeon's College, working towards completing the Church Training Initiative before moving on to their degree course. Mark has been a Christian since 2001, and now spends a lot of his time studying and researching various topics affecting Biblical and Church History. This has led him to start Theology Review, a place for thought and discussion on historical and current theology.

Mark Jones #fundie theologyreview.co.uk

(=Note: As entertaining as this is, popcorn unfortunately cannot be passed through the computer. I apologize for the inconvenience)

ANCIENT HISTORY: Did Noah Know Adam?

A little over a month ago I heard someone say that Noah may have known Adam. This is something I hadn’t really thought about before if I’m honest. However, after giving it some more thought, I came to the conclusion that this would be an interesting piece to write about.

Similar to my piece on the name of the Apostle Paul (which you can read here), sometimes subjects you haven’t put too much thought into can be the most fascinating things to look into. So that’s what we’re going to look into here in this article.

Before diving into the content of this article, I’d like to give some background as to why I’m writing this. Since last year I have been combing through the Bible looking for dates. This is to allow me to come up with a chronology from what the Bible indicates. Currently, I am about half way through the book of Joshua. This project has been on hold for a while, however, I do have data up until the book of Joshua, including the book of Genesis.

This data includes the number of years that are inclusive of the life of Adam and the life of Noah. So with that being said, let’s dive into the article and examine this question.

Could Noah Have Known Adam?
To start answering this question, we need to look at the life of Adam. We first need to answer how many years he lived for, and then we need to move on to the life of Noah. We also need to investigate how much (if any) of a gap was there between the death of Adam and the birth of Noah. So let’s investigate that, shall we?

The Life of Adam
Adam was the first man to be created (Genesis 2:7), He was created by God on the sixth day of creation. He and his wife Eve later rebelled in the Garden of Eden, eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and were subsequently kicked out of the garden. Shortly after this, Adam Eve bear their first two children, Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel, and Cain was then cursed to wander the earth because of his actions (Genesis 4:10-12). After Cain’s banishment, we don’t hear too much of Adam in the Bible, other than about the birth of his next son, Seth (Genesis 4:25-26). In Genesis chapter 5 we learn about the Genealogy from Adam to Noah, where we are told a few more details about the timeline of these events.

These details are:

Adam was 130 when he fathered Seth.
Adam lived another 800 years after Seth was born, fathering other sons and daughters.
Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.
This is confirmed in Genesis 5:3-5.

So that’s the life of Adam in a nutshell. Now to figure out whether he could possibly have known Noah personally, we need to do a little more maths. But first, let’s look at the life of Noah very briefly.

The Life of Noah
Noah is most well-known for the flood narrative. An epic tale of the world being flooded by God to do away with the world’s wickedness, and to remove the threat of a heinous invasion. Noah was the son of Lamech. Lamech fathered Noah at the age of 182 (Genesis 5:28-29). Noah was the grandson of Methuselah, and in terms of Adam, Noah was the 8th Great Grandchild of Adam. Meaning there were nine generations between Adam and Noah.

God asked Noah to build an ark and to take him, his wife, his sons, and his son’s wives onto the ark. They remained on the ark when the flood came for forty days and forty nights. Eventually, they left the ark and were tasked with repopulating the earth.

Noah lived a total of 950 years, and then he died (Genesis 9:29). His death occurring 350 years after the flood, which started when Noah was 600 years old. 100 years after Noah fathered his three sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth at the age of 500 (Genesis 5:32).

So now we have some basic details on the lives of both Adam and Noah, let’s try to figure out if the two of them could’ve in fact known each other.

Did Noah Know Adam?
To calculate whether Adam knew Noah, we have to calculate the number of years between the birth of Seth and the birth of Noah. Then we will have to see if that number is greater than the number of years between Seth’s birth and Adam’s death. Essentially we’re asking was there more than eight hundred years after the birth of Seth and the birth of Noah.

Below is a basic chronology table of the birth’s in the genealogy found in Genesis 5, and the number of years between them:

....


As you can see from this table, the number of years between the birth of Seth and the birth of Noah is 1,056 years. This is 256 years greater than the time between the birth of Seth and the death of Adam. Therefore it is my conclusion that Adam and Noah would not have known each other personally. My these figures we can see that Adam would’ve already been dead for two centuries before Noah was born.

I have no doubt that Noah would’ve known of Adam, however, I cannot say that Noah would’ve ever met Adam on this earth. Although it is interesting to think about this possibility and to speculate on the times of conversations that the two of them would have had, the Bible does not support this idea that Adam and Noah could have met.

Although this may not be the response some may have hoped for, we do actually have another aspect of Noah’s timeline of life that is extremely fascinating. That being that Noah would’ve died 10 years after Abraham was born. So depending on where Noah was living at the time of Abraham’s birth, it is actually possible that Noah could’ve known Abraham up until the age of 60, as Abraham was born 290 years after the flood subsided.

But that’s for another article.

Mark Jones #fundie #homophobia theologyreview.co.uk

Once again same-sex marriage has come into the news this week, with the recent release of The Nashville Statement. This statement has been put together in the states, with some very-well known names backing it as signatories. Names like John Piper, D.A. Carson, Darrell Bock, J.I. Packer, Vaughn Roberts, Sam Allberry, and much more. This document is an important to look at, as it gives a bit of insight to what many prominent evangelical church leaders make of this issue. Needless to say, this document is a highly important one to look at.

In this article, we will cover the various articles included in the statement. We will investigate each of the 14 articles, and see whether they line up with scripture or not.

N.B. Can I encourage everyone who reads this article to read the statement and their preamble.

The Fourteen Articles
As noted there are 14 articles in all in this declaration. Each of the articles affirms one thing denies another and those two things are linked.

The first article centers around marriage. Stating that God has designed to be between one man and one woman. The next article focuses on sex before marriage, stating that God’s will is for sex to only occur within the marriage bed. The third article focuses on a view of marriage known as complementarianism, stating that God created Adam and Eve as equal in the eyes of the Lord, but different in role and purpose. Up next is the third article, which continues along the thread started in article two. This third article states that Adam and Eve were created equal in value in God’s eyes, but different in roles and purpose. The fourth article is next which continues the theme of the third article, stating that these divinely ordered differences were God’s intention from the dawn of creation.

We then move on to the fifth and sixth article, which starts to look at sexual identity. The fifth article says that the group who put this statement together believe that the physical is a key part of God’s plan for our lives. Article seven states that if you happen to be born with a physical disorder of sex development you are still welcome to love and serve the Lord.

Next, we move on to a section of articles focusing on sexual identity and attraction. Article seven states that our sexual self-conception (another way of sexual identity), should be defined in God and how He has made us. Adopting a self-conception that runs contrary to this is not Godly. The eighth article says that those who experience same-sex attraction can still live rich Godly lives, but that same-sex attraction is not part of God’s design or plan for one’s life. Article nine is an article which says that sin distorts sexual desires by directing them away from marriage covenant (one man and one woman), and instead leads them to sexual immorality. This distortion is true for anyone they say, heterosexual and homosexual. The article does also say that an enduring pattern of desire for sexual immorality justifies acting upon it.

Article ten then leads us into a section about how we as Christians should respond when confronted with this issue. The tenth article starts it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism, and affirming such immoral sexual desires is a major departure from true Christian faithfulness and witness. The article also says that the approval of sexual immorality is not just a difference of opinion. The eleventh article that our duty as Christians is to speak the truth in love at all times, including when we speak to each other as male and female. Article twelve states very openly that God gives the mercy and the power that can lead a follower of the Lord to put to death sinful desires and to walk in a manner that is worthy of the Lord. Article twelve denies that the grace of God is insufficient to forgive all sexual sins. Article thirteen really caps off this section well by saying that the grace of God is powerful enough to allow people to forsake their transgender self-conceptions and to come to accept the God ordained link between one’s biological self, and their self-conception as male and female.

The fourteen articles then conclude with the article that states that Jesus Christ came into the world to save the world the world through His death and resurrection and to forgive our sins. The article also clearly says that salvation is available to everyone who repents of their sin in Christ alone as their Lord and Saviour.

My Thoughts on the Fourteen Articles
I have to be honest here, I agree wholeheartedly with everything that has been stated in these fourteen articles in the Nashville statement. They are grounded well in Biblical truth and are upfront and honest about the issue at hand. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the Bible is clear about this subject. So much so that even Jesus Christ states that homosexuality is immoral. The Jesus side of this can be complex, so I won’t go into that in this article, but I will put it together in an article and release that some point soon.

This subject is a very sticky subject and is one that needs to be handled with grace and truth. Notice the two go hand in hand. God calls us to love our brothers and sisters in Christ. And the question will always be one to raise, what’s more loving, to not tell someone that what they are doing is dishonouring to God, or to tell them? I can’t turn around and say it’s the former, it’s most definitely the latter. If I’m about to drink alcohol (I use this illustration because I can’t), I’d want those who are around me at the time to tell me not to, why? Because the results for me if I do are not worth doing it for. The same principle applies for sin in our lives that we willfully commit. There is a big difference between making a mistake which is sinful and choosing to act in a way that is.

So I have to say, honestly, I agree 100% with this statement, and the articles included. But what about you, what do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Mark Jones #fundie #homophobia theologyreview.co.uk

Following up on Our Response

I’d encourage those of you who read this article to read the blog from The Northern Jester. It’s always good to read the opinions of others, especially so if they don’t line up with your views, and more importantly scripture. Personally, I regularly read the likes of Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels (and others), why? Because if we truly want to have a voice on any issue, we should have a balanced understanding of it from both sides of the fence.

Outside of my reply to the article, there isn’t too much to say here. Although I could go on for days picking apart this article, I’m not going to here. As I don’t think that’s fair to the writer. What I will say that wasn’t really mentioned in the reply I sent to the blog, is that if you are someone who wants to argue for the affirmation of homosexuality, then at least avoid the Jesus argument from silence. It’s not a good argument, as what always happens when using this is that you ignore what Jesus defines as marriage (one man and one woman) because you’re looking for Jesus uttering the word homosexual.

On that front allow me to share something I found rather recently in my research on this subject (something I’ve been doing for over 2 years now). In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus is found in many debates with the Pharisees and scribes. Chapter 15 is one such occasion, in verses 10-20 of that chapter Jesus zones in on the subject of what defiles us, where in verse 19 he says:

“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.” – Matthew 15:19 (ESV)

Logically the person arguing for the affirmation of homosexuality may look at the citing of this verse and ask why is this verse even being brought up. It doesn’t include the word homosexuality, so Jesus can’t be including it here. However, this shows a lack of understanding of the original language the New Testament was written in, Koine Greek. See the word we translate as sexual immorality is the word porneia. Here is a quick translation of the word:

illicit sexual intercourse
adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,
metaph. the worship of idols
of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
So as we can see here, homosexuality (as well as lesbianism and beastiality) is included in the definition of porneia. Now the question to those arguing for Jesus never mentioning homosexuality during his ministry, is can you show me from this list what form (or forms) of sexual immorality Jesus is specifically mentioning and give a valid reason as to why this isn’t the case with homosexuality and lesbianism? And the answer to this question will have to be factual, not solely based on opinions.

Now, in this article, I will not be outlining what the Biblical view on this issue is, or how Christians should deal with this very important issue. That will come at another point in time. The purpose of this article is to share my response to the Northern Jester and to highlight this important question of whether or not Jesus did mention homosexuality in his ministry, which from reading the New Testament in Biblical Greek, it most certainly seems like he did.

This is a huge issue in our culture today, it will be discussed no end for a long time. This article and the Northern Jester’s blog will not change that anytime soon.

Mark Jones #fundie #homophobia theologyreview.co.uk

In the world of blogging and writing, sometimes you write an article that someone else uses as a springboard to push their opinion. Even going as far as to misquote you to allow for them to use something you’ve said to prop up their position on a particular issue.

This happened recently with an article that I wrote for Theology Review when a local North East political satire blog (read of that what you will) took upon itself to quote mine less than half a quote from our recent article on the situation revolving around Eugene Peterson in July. The situation being around a reported affirmation of gay marriage, and a retraction of Peterson’s statement on the subject.

For more on that please read our article “Getting to Grips With Eugene Peterson’s Statement on Gay Marriage”.

Due to the busyness of the summer, I haven’t been able to spend as much time working on content for Theology Review as I would like. However, last night I logged in to the website to check on a couple of things (not intending to write an article) and came across that the website had been tagged by another website in a blog post. So I went and checked it out, lo and behold, it was an article about homosexuality, where our website was subtly targeted for not being “inclusive” of people of a homosexual persuasion.

So I’ve read the article, and have responded to the article. In this article, I’m going to include my response to the blog and then post some observations about the blog.

Please note that I have removed the name of the author of the blog post at The Northern Jester.

Our Response to The Northern Jester
Hello,

First off, thanks for tagging my post in your article on this subject. It’s always nice to be tagged in a post, as it helps get a little more attention to the site.

However, let me take exception to the comment you made where you said the following:

“Or this article by the Theology Review that’s states how homosexual marriage was “not being pushed down the throats of society in 1997, whereas it is now” in which I don’t want to sound crass but the imagery just writes itself there.”

The first thing to point out here is that you take the quote out of context immediately, as the comment was addressing my observation/assumption to what Eugene Peterson meant by saying the question of whether he affirmed homosexuality or not wouldn’t have even been discussed 20 years ago. Stating that you think that “the imagery just writes itself”, is an indication of your view that this either shouldn’t be discussed or blindly accepted.

The other thing to note in the paragraph I quote you from is that you target an article found on Babylon Bee’s website. I feel as if I should let you know that Babylon Bee is a Christian satire site. So including an article that was written as a joke is not really something that would support your argument here.

It is also worth pointing out that Jesus definitely addressed the homosexual issue, he did this by expressly stating that marriage is to be between one man and one woman only as was established at creation in the garden of Eden (Matthew 19:3-5), also it is quite possible that Jesus references a tradition that was later recorded in the Genesis Rabbah, and is also noted in the Babylonian Talmud, that is that gay marriage was happening at the time of the flood (Genesis Rabbah) and had been outlawed from the time of Noah (Babylonian Talmud). This is found in Matthew 24:36-51 and Luke 17:20-37. Below are the quotes from the Babylonian Talmud and the Genesis Rabbah.

“The generation of the Flood was not blotted out of the world until they had begun writing nuptial hymns for marriages between males or between man and beast.”
Genesis Rabbah 26:5:4

“These are the thirty commandments which the sons of Noah took upon themselves but they observe three of them, namely, (i) they do not draw up a kethubah [marriage contract] document for males, (ii) they do not weigh flesh of the [human] dead in the market, and (iii) they respect the Torah.
Babylonian Talmud, Chullin 92a-b”

So as we can see there is very good reason to believe that Jesus did, in fact, address gay marriage, it just takes a lot of studying of Jewish history, tradition, and Midrash to see that. Personally, it took me a long time of studying the Bible before I came across this, so I encourage you to dig deep into this issue if you really want to have a voice on it.

However, I am not the authority here, God is, so let’s see what God says on the subject. Now because we are under the New Covenant, I’m going to focus on what the New Testament says, as the standard rule of thumb with law is that if it is noted in the New Testament in a context of whatever unlawful deed you’re referring to, still being unlawful, then we can say that in God’s eyes it is still wrong and shouldn’t be done. So here goes:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” – 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

“Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”- 1 Timothy 1:8-11

“For this reason, God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” – Romans 1:26-27

Read these passages (this just a sampling from the New Testament by the way), and tell me if any of these suggest that homosexuality and gay marriage is acceptable in God’s eyes. If we’re honest with ourselves, we can’t do that, not without manipulating and twisting scripture. At least with the Jesus argument, all you’re doing is ignoring what Paul said (John also speaks on the issue in Revelation).

As Christian’s our responsibility is to side with God and follow His will and His ways, not the ways that culture wants us to follow in. Now I understand that this will at times be difficult, I mean let’s be honest wouldn’t it just be easier if everyone gets saved if everyone went to heaven. Absolutely it would. But what real glorification of God would there be in that? Very little if we’re honest. God has set the world in His order, and that is the order we are to follow. We are not to try and worm our way around God because we don’t like His rules. That’s frankly an immature way to live. What we need to do is to adjust our position and stand in line with God, easy or not.

In terms of the love aspect, I actually agree with the basic sentiment. As Christian’s we should love everyone, and welcome them in. But truly loving someone does not mean that we affirm their sin, and God clearly defines homosexuality as a sin. It’s no different to adultery, murder, lust, gluttony, or any other sin in God’s eyes. The only difference is how much pop culture is pushing this agenda, when was the last time you saw a rally for polygamy, or Ofsted checking schools performances based on their acceptance of those who desire to commit bestiality. You don’t see either of those things (yet), but the LGBTQA+ agenda is massive, so much so that organisations such as the National Trust have tried to make the endorsement of this compulsory. I’m sure that’s tolerance though, right ??

Anyways, I’ve been on a while now and this comment is getting long. But let me say that I think it’s great that you have a heart and passion for everyone being welcome in God’s house. But with the gay marriage issue, that isn’t really the point. In fact, if you think that is the point, you’re actually missing the point. The real point is that if we’re really going to be godly people, then we can’t just blindly accept what the world tells us to. God is the authority here, not you or I, or pop culture. I know who’s side I’d rather be on.

All the best,
Mark