God determines who is on the right side of history

Eric Metaxas addressed CPAC last week, and I believe he was like a voice of one crying in the wilderness. His speech was about religious liberty and its recent erosion under the HHS mandate and the push for legal gay marriage. He noted that many politicos within the GOP are rushing to “get on the right side of history” on the issue of gay marriage in particular. Then Metaxas then delivered what I think is a prophetic word that everyone needs to hear:

God determines who is on the right side of history. Not the mainstream media and certainly not the government.

I recommend that you watch and listen to the entire speech on C-SPAN’s website. It is a word for our time.

11 Responses to God determines who is on the right side of history

  1. James Bradshaw March 18, 2013 at 5:10 pm #

    “God determines who is on the right side of history. Not the mainstream media and certainly not the government.”

    Let’s look at another moral issue that was so divisive it actually led to bloodshed: human slavery (that is: buying and selling human beings as chattel, regardless of their race).

    If we are to believe Scripture, God was either neutral on human slavery or He actually sanctioned it (as the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention believed — until they apologized for that stance when they caught up with the rest of secular society in 1995). (Exodus 21:20-21, Lev 25:44-46, Exodus 21:1-7, Eph 6:5-9, Col 3:22-25) — and yes, I know that there were Christian abolitionists. So what? All it proves is that a) Scripture is apparently so obtuse that people can’t figure out what it says about seemingly obvious moral issues and that b) it can be used to defend almost any position whatsoever.

    Fortunately, centuries of tradition were basically thrown out the window with the Emancipation Proclamation (a move that still irks thousands, if not millions, of Southern Confederates to this day).

    Look, our nation’s laws exist not to impose a particular variety of Christian virtue upon the populace but to secure the rights of its citizens and defend them from foreign forces. That’s it.

    Now, if you wish to discuss how gay marriage will impact religious liberties, that’s a worthy discussion to be had (although I find it curious that legal heterosexual divorce never seems to “impose” anything upon any religious believer despite Scripture’s clear condemnation of it).

    However, it’s time to stop pretending that religious texts can be used as a legal argument.

    • Bob Wheeler March 18, 2013 at 10:39 pm #

      Well said, James.

    • Paul Reed March 18, 2013 at 10:39 pm #

      Slavery is discussed quite a few times throughout the Bible. There’s almost an entire book of the Bible devoted to the matter, in Philemon. But you will look long and hard before you find “thou shall not own slaves”. Perhaps we’re wrong on the issue of slavery, but it would take a pastor with a spine to ever make any suggestion like that.

    • Adam Cavalier March 18, 2013 at 11:51 pm #

      James, your conclusions seem to be a denial of the historic doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture. Also, your relativistic proposal [that is so self-refuting it’s not even funny] lands us in a sea of man-centered opinions that ultimately cements us in ad populum fallacies.

    • Akash Charles March 19, 2013 at 3:08 am #

      Regardless God still determines who was on the right side of history- if anything your explanations supports the Quote and how scripture should be used- maybe God’s entire plan was for us to understand how to interpret the bible and see the wrong of our ways?!!

    • Ken Temple March 19, 2013 at 7:07 am #

      God’s condemnation of the slave trade: Exodus 21:16; Deut. 24:7; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; Revelation chrs 17-18; Rev. 18:13.

      I noticed your left out verse 16 in Exodus 21.

      1. The verses in the Bible that seem to affirm having slaves, was not an endorsement of kidnapping people and forcing them into slavery, and selling them, that was wrong – Exodus 21:16 and Deut. 24:7; they other OT passages are responding to what to do if existence of slavery was already a reality;

      2. or it was voluntary selling oneself into indentured servitude in order to survive and eat, etc. (the OT passages are mostly in this context), (as in a modern context of someone willing to work a menial job for food or pay or a place to sleep, in order to survive and live;

      3. or, as in the case with the NT verses to not rebel and submit to the masters and do a good job as unto the Lord, it was speaking against outright violent rebellion.

      See this article:
      http://reformedbaptistfellowship.org/2013/01/14/not-one-word/

      “Does the Bible uphold the type of chattel-slavery which existed in Antebellum America to which O’Donnell makes reference? Absolutely not. The Old Testament does indeed uphold and regulate various forms of servitude. We’ll certainly acknowledge that. Indentured servitude, for example, allowed an individual to sell himself into slavery in order to pay off debts. It was a sort of social safety net in the ancient world which prevented individuals and their families from starving to death. That’s the context that’s often missing from these discussions. James White and others have talked about this at length. But it is beyond absurd to assert that this is somehow comparable to plantation slavery in 19th century America.

      Yet O’Donnell says, referencing America’s practice of chattel-slavery, that there’s “not one word” condemning it. Really? Is he sure? Let’s take a look at Exodus 21:16 to see if that’s true:

      He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.

      So we see here that the practice of man-stealing (to use another term) and the subsequent selling of the kidnapped individual into slavery were ruled by God to be capital offenses. In practical terms, this means that the practitioners of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade–both of sellers and the buyers–would have received the death penalty. Just the other night as I led my family through our daily Bible readings, we came across a similar provision in Deuteronomy 24:7. Not one word, Mr. O’Donnell? Hardly.”

    • Michael Lynch March 19, 2013 at 8:18 am #

      “Now, if you wish to discuss how gay marriage will impact religious liberties, that’s a worthy discussion to be had”
      James, since you asked, and since Metaxas didn’t really give examples in his speech, here are some examples he has given:
      http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/how-will-gay-marriage-hurt-us-heres-how/

      I seen more examples of the impact around me. Trevin wax addresses some: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2013/03/19/read-the-fine-print-before-supporting-same-sex-marriage/

      I would say these are the slippery-slope issues that many did not see coming, but they are here.

      • James Bradshaw March 19, 2013 at 9:55 pm #

        Michael, some of your examples are based in other nations where freedom of speech is not protected as an absolute right as it is here. You should recall that the Supreme Court recently found in favor of the most radical anti-gay group in the US (Westboro Baptist) in Snyder vs Phelps. As such, I’m not overly concerned about “hate speech” laws here in the US.

        Now, some of the litigation you referenced is a bit more complicated. I would agree that our judicial system is filled with senseless and frivolous lawsuits (I favor tort reform in many areas, including medical malpractice). The issue of contraception is a worthwhile discussion but should probably be addressed on a separate thread.

        I guess I need to respond by asking another question: let’s say that a man went to a county clerk and said “I have obtained a legal decree of divorce from my wife so that I could marry the woman who has been my mistress for the last several years”. As far as I can tell, no clerk has ever bothered inquiring into the faith or past marriages of a heterosexual, but let’s just say that they did. Would they be permitted to deny this couple a legal marriage license? Would they be possibly open to litigation? I would guess that the challenges to this clerk would be very similar. So gay marriage does not impose any NEW challenges to religious civil liberties than ones that do not already exist. As far as I know, no civil clerk can say “I don’t like the fact that this heterosexual Christian man is marrying a Jew” and deny them a license, for example. So … the problem is not gay marriage, per se.

        As I’ve said, though, I generally oppose using litigation to coerce religious believers into actions that they feel would compromise their values. I wouldn’t do so, myself. However, we need to weigh the rights of couples to form civil partnerships as they see fit with the rights of others to not be complicit in those relationships. It’s a difficult juggling act. I don’t think the proper response is to simply deny all legal partnerships to certain types of couples because someone, somewhere might be offended, though.

  2. Josh Brown March 18, 2013 at 7:11 pm #

    Thank God for Eric Metaxas

  3. Paul Reed March 18, 2013 at 10:39 pm #

    @James Bradshaw

    Slavery is discussed quite a few times throughout the Bible. There’s almost an entire book of the Bible devoted to the matter (Philemon). But you will look long and hard before you find “thou shall not own slaves”. Perhaps we’re wrong on the issue of slavery, but it would take a pastor with a spine to ever make any suggestion like that.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Rebuttal to Eric Metaxas on Pope Francis and John MacArthur | Reformed Bibliophile - March 22, 2013

    […] Last Saturday I was doing a bit of work around the house and I had the TV set on C-SPAN listening to Mr. Metaxas give his speech. Though I didn’t hear all of the speech much of what I did here was good. Including his memorable line opposing “gay-marriage”, […]

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes