Thursday, June 02, 2011

Presbyterians Urged to Reconsider

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The Presbyterian Lay Committee is directing people, through print ads, to a petition where they can declare their stance on the PC (USA) 's liberal direction.

The message of the petition says in part, "I grieve over the apparent departure of the Presbyterian Church (USA) from these Scriptural truths, and I am estranged from its policies and programs that do not affirm Christ alone, Scripture alone and the institution of marriage alone, as the divinely ordained context for human sexuality..."

The Committee has run these ads in The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the Atlanta Journal Constitution and the Houston Chronicle.

Ironically, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, that promotes itself as a "voice for tolerance" and claims in its promotions that it sees "The First Amendment as its guiding light and tolerance as its North Star," said "No," we won't run your ad---unless you modify it. The modification would have eliminated their message. I have linked the story above.

Tolerance in its finest moment.

Presbyterians (USA) have reason to be concerned about the direction of their church denomination. A study last January found that only 1 in 3 Presbyterians (USA) believe Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. There were other findings. I have linked the story for your convenience.

Many Presbyterian and other churches are going through a time of discovery as to whom they really are and what they really believe.

I have included a list of Presbyterian and other churches in Washington State who consider themselves "Gay Affirming," meaning the church affirms or celebrates homosexual behavior rather than presenting it as in violation of Scriptural teaching---sin.

I have also included a statement from First Presbyterian Church in Bellevue.

The following is part of a statement published by Dr. Scott Dudley, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Bellevue.

The Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) has voted, by a slim margin, to change the wording of ordination standards by removing specific language requiring fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness for those ordained as pastor, elder or deacon. This change is known as Amendment 10-A and is being wrongly interpreted and reported by some as allowing non-celibate gays and lesbians into ordained church leadership.

The passage of Amendment 10-A will not change anything at FPCB or any of the presbyteries in the state of Washington. We strongly oppose this amendment. Our congregation, our presbytery, and all five presbyteries in Washington state rejected Amendment 10-A and similar previous efforts. And nothing in 10-A requires us to change our local church practices. Instead, we continue to affirm the following: Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which scripture and the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.

I have linked the entire statement here.

This is a link to the list of churches in Washington State that declare themselves to be "Gay Affirming" churches. I defined a "gay affirming" church above.

Be Vigilant. Be Informed. Be Prayerful.


Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox


  1. As a former Presbyterian, I left the denomination in 1989 because of these and other issues. When I told my Pastor that I was leaving and the reasons why, he was dumbfounded and said that "our little church was not like that". Of course, over the years it has leaned farther and farther away from the Scriptures and a Biblical world view. I was always more prone to the views of the Presbyterian Layman, which the Pastor said was "radical and a little extreme" because of their adherence to the Bible!!!!

    The Bible is clear about churches falling away in the last days. So be it. I pray for all the churches.

  2. As Dr. Scott Dudley, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Bellevue said:

    …nothing in 10-A requires us to change our local church practices.

    And when you research the testimony to the Book of Order you know that this is true, and was intended to be true from its first presentation.

    As to the unofficial 'Presbyterian Lay Committee' charity, they are entitled to their opinions as are other Presbyterians. (which was the whole point of the change in the first place!)

    I'm not allowed to give you any easy links but the entire history of the change is easily found on line. Bother to find them and research them. Another tempest in a teapot by those obsessed with the logs in other people's eyes.

    Oh and the pastor I'm dating appreciates the list of gay friendly churches. Have a great Gay Pride month everyone.

  3. There are other Presbyterian denominations that hold to biblical standard. The Orothodox Presbyterian Church denomination was formed 75 years ago because of the liberal thinking of the pcusa.

  4. I'm not Presbatyerian, but ti just strikes me how far we've come from the days of Dr. D. James Kennedy (God rest him) and his Center for Reclaiming America. No wonder mainstream denominations are losing members by the thousands and non-conventional groups (like the non-denominational Pentecostal type churches and others) are growing. Don't tell me people don't want to know the Truth and aren't hungering for moral clarity in thier lives!

  5. The Presbeyterian Lay Committee?

    First off, they are not, despite what the name might lead one to believe, an official church sanctioned lay group. What they are is a conservative sub-group, one that was originally formed to protest the PCUSA's opposition to racial discrimination in the confession of 1967. How proud you must be to affiliate yourself with such people!

  6. I appreciate the post Gary. It's good to know that there are still some people left in the Pacific Northwest who are neither interested in mocking the Bible nor interested in mocking those who cherish the Truth.

    I know that calling sin what it is, is not hate but love - not death but life to those who heed the warning.

    We are praying with you, especially for those who hate and mock the Truth.

    Vanessa & Danny

  7. Ohster. It seems you have missed the point of this blog. Gary is just reporting on something that is concerning to many of us. Millions of people are expressing concern and many Presbyterian churches are holding special meetings on this issue. It is not a temptest in a teapot to us.
    So you are dating a pastor. I thought you were an athiest and I have seen you refer to the Bible as myth and Christianity as a crutch, etc. Is the pastor you are dating also an athiest? How does that work?

  8. Gary is just reporting on something that is concerning to many of us.

    Why is it a concern? If you've read the reasons it was changed you know that it was because the old section was being used disingenuously since it concluded

    …Persons refusing to repent of any self - acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.

    Were all women, forbidden to teach men in Scripture, repenting? Were all those who had divorced likewise being precluded from being 'deacons, elders, or ministers?' The Presbyterians have a long tradition of evaluating Scripture by their heart (a core concept from their churches incept was it was written by inspired men, not that it is the inspired word).

    The statement was not being applied as written evenly. The new writing allows all actual evaluation and does not mandate anything new happen but since every single person who will get any calling is a sinner it now means there must be discussion. Why would the allow a divorced woman get the Call and not a married lesbian? If there is a reason what is it? The board might reject both, one or neither, but each is being evaluated on their own merits and without restricting the traditional Presbyterian right of:

    That, while under the conviction of the above principle we think it necessary to make effectual provision that all who are admitted as teachers be sound in the faith, we also believe that there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good characters and principles may differ. And in all these we think it the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other. (Book of Order, G-­1.0305)

    Gay and lesbian members who get the Call are still as deniable as before - now though the case has to be made rather than just pointing at a line in a book. The change promotes honesty and integrity of purpose and process and will make all candidate evaluation more in keeping with doctrine.

    Is the pastor you are dating also an athiest? How does that work?
    Oooo you want the dirt. :) Works fine -This is America, everyone has a right to their own choices. He loves chocolate, I'm allergic, he like's 'chick flicks', I like action movies, he goes to church, I don't.

    In a world where everyone is allowed their own choices none of this stuff people here get so worked up over isn't really that big a deal.

  9. Let's keep holding to life though so much of the world and even some of the church decide to accept the things of death, for all things are ours. (I Cor 3:22)

    There is no corruption in Jesus, and so we have this hope, and it is steadfast.

    I think the time is near when the works of a lot of people are going to be tried. When the Lord comes to his temple, things are going to change.

    When was the last time we really felt his presence in a powerful way? Lots of people are praying for his return,
    to see him in a powerful way.

    Are we not at a time so near to revival? I cor 3 is good reading for me today.

  10. Vishanti-You make it sound like no big deal about the Presbyterian church. It is a big deal. The Seattle Times had an article on May 11 that was from the New York Times with Seattle's Janet Tu contributing that said their action cleared the way for gay clergy. we can't do links so I am pasteing the article from the Seattle Times. I hope it goes through.
    Presbyterian Church (USA) clears way for openly gay clergy
    After 33 years of debate, the Presbyterian Church (U.S. A.) has voted to change its constitution and allow openly gay people in same-sex...


    The New York Times


    Top comments Hide / Show comments
    No comments have been posted to this article.
    Start the conversation >

    After 33 years of debate, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has voted to change its constitution and allow openly gay people in same-sex relationships to be ordained as ministers, elders and deacons.

    The move is a reversal from two years ago, when a majority of the church's regions, known as presbyteries, voted against ordaining openly gay candidates.

    This time, 19 of the church's 173 presbyteries switched their votes from no to yes in recent months.

    The Twin Cities presbytery, which covers Minneapolis and St. Paul, cast the deciding vote Tuesday. The vote was 205-56, with three abstentions.

    All five presbyteries in Washington state voted against the amendment, as they did when similar measures came up in years past.

    That means it's unlikely Presbyterian churches in this state would ordain noncelibate gay and lesbian ministers, since the amendment allows each local presbytery to decide whether to do so, said Corey Schlosser-Hall, executive presbyter of the North Puget Sound Presbytery, which covers North King, Snohomish and other counties.

    Besides ministers, the Presbyterian Church ordains deacons and elders. Unlike ministers, who are ordained by the presbytery, deacons and elders are ordained by individual congregations.

    So congregations in this state that would want to ordain gays or lesbians as deacons or elders would presumably be able to do so, Schlosser-Hall said.

    Unlike some other mainline Protestant denominations in the state, which tend to be liberal, the Presbyterian denomination here tends to be more conservative.

    Although by the time the vote was taken in Minneapolis the outcome was expected, Presbyterian officials said that even a few months ago they would not have predicted the church was ready to change its policy.

    "All of us are surprised," said the Rev. Gradye Parsons, the church's Stated Clerk, its highest elected official.

    He attributed the vote turnabout to both the growing acceptance of homosexuality in the larger culture and to church members simply wearying of the conflict.

    "We've been having this conversation for 33 years, and some people are ready to get to the other side of this decision," he said.

    The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) now joins a growing bloc of historic, mainline Protestant churches that have voted to accept gay clergy members and church leaders — a bloc that includes the United Church of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and The Episcopal Church.

    (The largest mainline Protestant denomination, the United Methodist Church, is still fighting over the issue).

    The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has about 2 million members.

    The Presbyterian Church in America, a much smaller and more conservative denomination, prohibits the ordination of women and openly gay candidates.

    The Rev. Heidi Vardeman, senior minister of Macalaster Plymouth United Church in St. Paul, and a spokeswoman for a pro-gay church group called "More Light Presbyterians," said in an interview, "Finally, the denomination has seen the error of its ways and it will repent, which means, literally, to turn around.

    Information from Seattle Times staff reporter Janet Tu is included in this report.

  11. Well it is a big deal in that it puts all 'sinners' on an even footing but that is all it does. You have to realize that the Presbyterians have always been quite 'liberal' when it comes to matters of personal choice like sexuality, abortion and birth control. They also feel having a self-righteous attitude about another member on these issue is itself just as much a sin. Or as a writing from way back in 1973 says:

    Thus it will be seen that the United Presbyterian Church of the US has not adopted a rigid and inflexible position with respect to homosexuality but is earnestly seeking to know the will of God and the duty of man in regard to the whole realm of human sexuality.

    Also my pastor explained that the Lutherans, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are members of an agreed larger calling that encourages them to look to each other on making doctrinal decisions. (some specific name for the agreement that I can't recall)

    So it does make it possible for there to be clergy who's gay just by virtue of the fact there isn't a specific prohibition against it. But if you look at their history and their stated process such 'fiats' are inconsistent with how they have traditionally do things anyway. They have all sorts of other sinners already in every church positions. All that's changed is that all sins now are on an equal footing. If a church decides not to have any clergy that happen to be gay it is their decision all this does is leave it open for someone else to make a different one.

  12. It's not self-righteous to call sin what it is, to say that they can't repent(change their mind) and are therefore undeserving of hearing the truth of the Gospel is. That's the point of evangelizing, we all need to hear that our choices have ETERNAL CONSEQUENCES. God is not mocked, we will reap what we sow.

    You can be traditional and still be biblically in error; God's word doesn't change and all scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16)

    Doctrinal issues are to be settled by God's Word, not our opinion of it. Jesus said in the last days there would be a falling away from the truth and sufficientcy of biblical teaching.

    The Laodicean Church is here, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. It has become fat and lazy, yet it is poor and blind, having itching ears carried along by false doctrine. Read Romans 1:24ff

    Craig in Lacey

  13. Too much world in the church . It is important to note I believe Paul's letter that took up issue with sexual immorality in the church. Sexual immorality does not only mean hetrosexual behavior .

  14. But that's just it Mick, this is the way this sect has evaluated things for a very long time. So this slight change that just means all sins are treated equally is just that. I mean this is a church who said in the 70's that abortion was a personal choice - is it really so surprising that with current knowledge that some might also feel that attitudes towards sexual orientation are the same? Even in the 70's they had no consensus towards homosexuality - you really think they would have gotten more restrictive on this since then?

    Again your sect might differ but in my sunday school the Sermon on the Mount was presented as Jesus telling the listeners 'You don't follow the Law, you don't even understand the Law, and even if you think you do there will still always be that one you won't do.'

    That's what the fulfillment of the Law was all about; that's why Jesus made it clear that all valid Law flows from the great Commandments and that it covers even tax collectors, Roman Centurions and their pais, those vile and hated Samaritans, and all sorts of people that will have rooms in heaven's mansion that the more hard-hearted don't think deserve it but might end up being surprised their own reservations have not been confirmed.

    But we've been through all this before, haven't we? Some Christians feel that worrying about sexual orientation is like worrying about wearing two fiber cloth and those that do either are entirely missing the point of Jesus' message to the world. Someone else has a differing opinion - that's great this is America.

  15. My sect may differ ? I was talking about the church . Your not able to understand because you are not part of the church, denominations was not the plan for the church . It would be like myself understanding what it is to be a homosexual . I can only guess. Your looking at it from a secular outside viewpoint as though a church is a political or humanistic choice .

    Sexual sin outside of marriage , just like mis treating homosexuals is against the church . Your understanding of the restrictions of cloth is a secular reasoning , and has no understanding of the restrictions put in the Torah . In fact most of those restrictions, especially the ones used on homosexuality are used to promote political views these days , with little value placed on the original intent or the Church .

    But like you said , its great to live in America.
    Too much world in the church these days , but I have to say I am no better , I am a product of the Reformation and much of what this culture has tilted my own understanding .

    Its clear , sexual sin has no place in the church . It leaves so many hurt . It makes those who have the Living Spirit of Christ in their living body to enter another living body through sexual contact . Hence you are taking God and making him a partner in the deal . If you don't believe the living Christ is or can be in the physical body , you really have a poor understanding of what I am talking about .


  16. Ah Mick, using the 'True Scotsman' argumentative fallacy. These aren't my observations these are Christian observations. If you want to think of all sects being in one church then have at it, again its America, but all that does is mean there are people in your church that disagree with you.

    Some of your church don't think its a sin, and others don't think that sexual sin is any more a sin than any other sin and the only church without sin is the one without a single member. The later is more what the Presbyterians are saying- and it is their decision to make.

  17. "Of course, over the years it has leaned farther and farther away from the Scriptures and a Biblical world view"

    I agree Judith . The Bible warns us of sin in the church and how it spreads through out .

  18. GMAN It is strange how some denominations have changed . Some liberal denominations have taken away hell , the resurrection , and even the deity of Christ. They have more in common with those who post here as a means to show the error of the ways of believers then as the Lord commanded for us to love One another and be ONE church .

    All denominations seem to have their pet top ten sins . Some are sexual , some are homosexual , adultry , racism , etc . The new thing now is gender . In public schools specfic gender roles are now seen as discriminatory . Any role that is gender specfic is considered wrong . I am not talking about not tolerating some one because they have a gender that does not fit say the male or female stereotype , I am talking about the belief in academia not to tolerate gender roles that are traditionally accepted in our culture or any culture . . The intolerance as usually is secular .

    Gender identiy is a by product of the tolerance movement .
    One only has to look to see what happen to the Native America Culture was taken from them . To this day they never have recovered , as in the African American community . In both cultures the males were stripped of their cultural norms , and both have incredibly high rates of dysfunction from suicide , prison, etc .


  19. "These aren't my observations these are Christian observations."

    LOL you crack me up . That is so cool . ;o)


  20. All denominations seem to have their pet top ten sins… The new thing now is gender… The intolerance as usually is secular.

    This paragraph mishmashes together - first you say that gender is a denomination 'pet top' sin, then you say its academia and secular. I mean I can see where denominations are, particularly those that allow women in roles of authority since that is specifically against New Testament teaching and a grievous sin to the log counters, but academia? All I am familiar with is some say that gender roles are totally learned, but that's it.

    It is ironic that you bring up Native Americans though since they were very fluid in their gender roles and even considered gay men as 'two spirited' with many tribes allowing a warrior to take a two spirited man as a wife when a previous one died. Most tribes taught both boys and girls all the responsibilities of both genders. Being conquered and driven from there homes was probably a bigger influence in cultures where often it was the women that 'brought home the bacon' don't you think?

    And yes 'Christian observations.' Like it or not there are Christians that think YOU and yours are the ones on the wrong side of many issues - that's why there are so many sects to begin with. You want to look at all the sects as being part of one church then don't complain to me - take care of your own house first.

  21. Oshtur

    There is only one church, denominations are an abomination and unsupported by any Scripture. The false doctrine of these denominations is Satan's attempt to destroy as many people as possible. He knows his time is short.

    He's using the same lie he told Eve. "Did God really say....."

    It doesn't matter what any church thinks is or isn't a sin, it's what the Bible says is sin that counts. It's God we all have to give an account to, whether you believe in Him or not.

    God said ALL SEXUAL IMMORALITY IS SIN, PERIOD!!!!! No ifs, ands or buts and the wages of sin are DEATH, PERIOD!!!!!!

    There is good news, though. forgiveness is available by confession, repentance and baptism. Tomorrow may be too late=)

    Craig in Lacey

  22. Then who is the true church? The Catholics? Roman or Eastern? Mormons? Christian Scientists? Unitarians? You are presuming you know things that the wise say no one knows (isn't there a verse about that?) Just recently someone in these threads claimed that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian when I am just as much a one as he is.

    People can be followers of Jesus without being worshippers of Paul, or engaging in idolatry over a compilation of writings selected by a Catholic committee. But you must know this.

    As to your declaration of "IS SIN. PERIOD" So is a man allowing himself to be instructed by a woman, so is charging interest, so is raising your voice and speaking disparagingly against your neighbors. Why the obsession with sexual sin, if that's what it is, when there isn't even a sex in heaven, period. Surely someone who is disingenuous, gossipy, judgemental, and the like - mental qualities that might get carried over to the afterlife are far more important concerns, right?

    Again, the final punctuation of the Sermon on the Mount was that even those that follow and understand the Law will ALWAYS have just that one thing they won't comply with. So to put it in your frame:


    Worrying about their neighbor's - probably not the best use of any follower of Christ's time.

  23. The true church doesn't have a denomination, that's the point.
    The church accepts God's Word at face value without adding the worship of Mary, Paul, Luther, Calvin or anybody else and without removing those passages that they think are outdated or unpopular.

    The true church understands that God's word doesn't change to suit us. It's the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

    I presume nothing, but I do know that when God pronounces something as sin, he doesn't change his mind. Scripture is very clear on that.

    The verse you refered to I believe concerns Christ's return. He said no one knows, not even the Son, but only the Father. Which wise men are you referring to?

    Those who die in Christ receive a resurrection body free from sinful desires, so those MENTAL PROBLEMS you referred to won't be a problem, they don't carry over, sin is not allowed in the presence of God.

    If you're going to debate from a biblical viewpoint, you should read it and try to understand it better. Whether there's a sex in heaven is not the point, what you do here determines whether you get there or not. I'm not excusing any other sins, this conversation was about sexual ones.

    Worrying about the eternal resting place of my fellow humans and preaching confession and repentance is precisely the best use of any follower of Christ's time. It's what the Great Commission is all about.

    Craig in Lacey

  24. No, my first and original point was that this was about treating all sins equally which is all the change in the Presbyterian Book of Order does.

    And no I was talking about the part where those who think they have an in to the banquet are most likely the people that won't have a seat at all.

    As far as sin being sin, then you don't eat shrimp, etc? No probably not.

    Again other Christians, just as good as you, sincerely believe that Jesus saying that all the Law flows from the two commandments was both a test and a filter for what's now important.

    Focusing on others sins just blinds people to their own and the good that they have been commanded to focus on by Jesus.

  25. I don't care what the Presbyterian book of order says, it doesn't agree with what the Bible says on this subject. Which makes it false doctrine, That was my original point.

    Blaspemy agaist the Holy Spirit can't be forgiven, murder can be, so how can they be equal? All sins are not equal according to biblical teaching.

    As for eating shrimp, etc., read Acts 10:1-16. It's no longer prohibited for Jews or Gentiles. The key verse being "What God has cleansed, you must not call common". Read also Romans Chapter 14 for edification.

    As for the banquet, yes I am well aware of the verse. This has to do with motives. Am I doing good to only be seen by others to be doing so, so I may receive the praise of men or to glorify myself? If thats the case, Jesus said I have received my reward. I speak the truth in love so that God may be glorified by the fruit that's produced by those who will heed his word. God help me if I ever begin to think this is about me.

    The First commandment, "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength". How are you demonstrating that love if you purposely stick your finger in his eye by willfull disobedience?

    "The second is like it, 'love thy neighbor as thyself'". Can anybody fulfill the second if they aren't making an effort to fulfill the first?.

    I'm well aware that I'm a sinner too, you won't find any self-righteousness here. The only righteousness I have is in Christ alone.

    Do you know what the Great Commission is?

    Craig in Lacey

  26. Craig I think different Christians focus on different things. I asked my pastor and he said you'd missed the relevant passage Galatians 3:23-25.

    The Presbyterians are doing exactly what they were told to do. Evaluating things by the two commandments is how Christians are supposed to identify what is still required, by presuming all the old law is somehow in force you are ignoring the whole point of Christ's sacrifice - to free you from its yoke.

    Again, for many devote Christians that have accepted Christ's sacrifice someone being gay and fulfilled in that is no more a sin than wearing two fiber cloth. Someone can be gay, love God with all their heart, and love their neighbors all at the same time If being gay was intrinsically wrong then that wouldn't even be possible.

    You've talked of Satan but Christ himself said that his burden was light, so what would be the deceiver's prime mission be once he realized the blunder he had made? Trick people into saying they were still bound by the yoke of law, and that their burden was heavy and the path hard to follow.

    As far as the Great Commission, yes I know about it. Are you aware there are two schools of thought on this - some think it was fulfilled in the first century of Christianity and some think it has to do with Revelations?

    Regardless if someone practices it, they'd best be doing so with a open and nonjudgemental heart - I'm told the best way to do that is look for the good in people and leave identifying what is actually bad up to God.

  27. The purpose of the law is to convict us of our sinfulness, your pastor friend is right as far as being justified by the law. No one can be, unless they keep it perfectly, which is impossible for sinful man to do. We have been freed from the law because of Christ's sacrifice, that still doesn't give us a license to sin.

    How would we know what sin was without the law? The law still has a place, only not for salvation.

    In the story of the woman caught in adultery, Jesus took to task those who condemned her with the words " let he who is without sin cast the first stone", he then knelt and wrote in the dust. It's not recorded what he wrote, I think it was the commandments and one by one they dropped their rocks and left. Jesus asked the woman "where are your accusers, does no one condemn you", she said, "no one Lord". He said," neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more"

    OUCH! you mean those that have been forgiven must resist sin? Jesus clearly said so, how can we manifest a love for God if again, we purposely, willfully disobey him? We must love Him on his terms, not our own.

    Jesus said "not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away until all things are fulfilled", since he hasn't returned yet, that's still in effect.

    The Great Commission never ends until the gospel is preached to every tongue, tribe and nation. There are indigenous people who have never heard of Jesus, how could it have been fulfilled in the first century? North and South America were unheard of. Oh, it's revelation, no s.

    I seek to see the good in people while stiil being compelled to warn them that what we do has eternal consequences. It is what my Lord has commanded me to do.

    I walk by faith, not by sight.

    Craig in Lacey

  28. How would we know what sin was without the law? The law still has a place, only not for salvation.
    Pay attention - Jesus told you that all the Law that is still valid flows through the 2 commandments. That makes an easy test for what should and shouldn't be done.

    In the story of the woman caught in adultery,
    Excellent example - adultery, having sex with someone other than your spouse, hurts you them, and many around you - it doesn't pass the Great Commandment's test.

    you mean those that have been forgiven must resist sin?
    Of course they do, but again people can be gay, have a loving spouse, and still be 100% within compliance with The Great Commandments.

    Jesus said "not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away until all things are fulfilled", since he hasn't returned yet, that's still in effect.

    No, he fulfilled the Law by taking all the sin of the world on upon himself - sin is violation of the Law and when Christ died on the cross all sin was made clean. That's what allowed the Law to pass, that's why you can wear two fiber cloth, allow your wife to stay in the house while having her period, have women teaching men, be gay and a host of a zillion other 'don't'' without necessarily sinning.

    The time of the laundry lists of don'ts is over, it is a simple test of two do's that has taken its place.

    I seek to see the good in people while stiil being compelled to warn them that what we do has eternal consequences. It is what my Lord has commanded me to do.
    And so others are concerned about you. Again, the warnings of Jesus were you don't follow the Law, you don't understand the Law, and even if you think you do there will still always be that one thing you won't do. Resisting the urge to set yourself up as the judger of what's still the Law without the test of the Great Commandments is maybe that one thing you won't do?


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.