In a recent Sunday newspaper (1-17-16), a Mr. Clark of Longwood said he was outraged about what a recent Republican Representative from Virginia said concerning owning “the entire [biblical] tradition.” He goes on to ask, “The Republicans now think they own the Bible?” Well, if that is what the representative thought, that would of course be absurd. The Bible is universal. Women don’t own it; neither do men. It does not belong to the rich exclusively-nor to the poor. No political party owns it, although both have quoted from it. No country can stake a claim to it, either. It belongs to the entire world.
If Mr. Clark had left it there, probably everyone would have agreed with his wisdom, but he went on to say that the representative chastised “the President for quoting the Bible in such a manner as to justify false Democratic ideals of acceptance, compassion, and love.” Apparently, the representative thinks these are false ideals-not Mr. Clark. He does not think anyone should challenge another person quoting of the Bible.
Anyone can quote the Scriptures if they desire. Adolph Hitler could have; so could any mass murderer. No one is saying they did-only that they could have. However, who would listen to them-knowing that they violated the morality of the book they quoted? Yes, Mr. Clark, we all have the right to challenge some who quote the Bible-when they strongly advocate what is diametrically opposed to it. No one is perfect, but some have lost all moral authority.
Our President is not qualified to quote the Bible for at least two reasons. First, he is in favor of abortion, which terminates the innocent lives of children who will never make it to birth. The child in the womb is still a child (Luke 1:41, 44). Worse than that, he protects Planned Parenthood whose representatives have admitted to the gruesome practice of selling baby parts. Anyone who refuses to see the sanctity of human life is not fit to quote anything about love and compassion. Second, the President used his influence to not only uphold the sin of homosexuality (is that what Clark meant by acceptance?) but to also endorse homosexual “marriage,” which blasphemes the institution designed and defined by God. Anyone who could so misunderstand such clear Bible teachings and encourage the violation of these principles cannot be trust in any application of God’s Holy Word.