A new blog has been commenced by Rev Ian Brown, minister in Londonderry FPC, Clerk of Presbytery and also Convener of the Government & Morals Committee of Presbytery. It is designed to carry statements and articles about events and issues that come within the remit of the Government & Morals Committee of Presbytery. On many occasions statements are released to the press and media about these matters but never carried.
You will find the blog here.
Bookmark it and visit it regularly!
8 comments:
had a wee gawk at that new blog, and noticed " Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment."
doesnt want to deal with any confrontational issues that people with opposed views may have, would that indicate that the blogger is not really sure of himself or insecure in his beliefs?
Noticed that the big man is resigning his ministry to write his biograpy. Will anyone notice, seriously notice?
will be interested to read the biography especially what motivated him to leave his Godly Baptist upbringing and roots to adopt the label or a persecutor of the Baptists in the past, (Protestant). A label that does not even require its holder to be a Christian. Most protestants I ask 'Are you a Christian' reply 'NO'
Anonymous
Quite a ramble!
As stated in my post the blog is there to carry statements and highlight issues. It is the blog administrator's choice what form comments take.
If you are so keen to post a comment then join up. Its quite easy! Or would that cause a problem in no longer being able to hide behind the 'anonymous' button?
I don't think it is a matter of not wanting to deal with confrontational issues as you claim. If that were so then there would be no blog at all. More a case of not interested in people who hide their identity. I would be in full agreement with that sentiment.
Whatever you may think or say about Ian Paisley at least he does it on the record unlike you.
If you care to give your name then I am more than happy to discuss the issues you raise. So its over to you!!
Brian McClung
hello and a very happy new year,
have looked at yours and that other fellows blog, may i submit a question, well more an observation than a question, something I would like to understand.
What is the free presbyterian churchmen's preoccupation with homosexuals all about?
are there not more serious or pressing sins to be tackled?
in sermonaudio.com, which covers more than free presbyterian I know, a word search under sermons reveals the following, gay is 85 sermons, homo is 239 sermons, queer is 2 sermons, yet the far more prevalent in our socirty and destructful to the married family unit sin of fornication yeilds only 56 sermons.
as you are no doubt well aware from 10 year old statistics for every cohabiting homosexual couple here in northern ireland there are 66 cohabiting (and when they are having sex fornicating) heterosxual couples
and that is just the ones living together
should sins like this not be a policing priority than your preoccupation with the gays, surely if the gays wanted to know about your beliefs they could have enquired by now.
gerard
Gerard
You seem to be pretty 'occupied' with the subject yourself if you go to all those lengths!
Our opposition to Sodomy is very simple to explain -
If you read Romans ch 1 you will find a number of descriptions applied to this sin that are not applied to other sins. There are sins more heinous that others and destined to bring the wrath of God upon not only a person but a society that condones them. Sodomy is such a sin.
God didn't destroy whole cities by fire and brimstone for their committing of other sins but He did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain for this particular sin. That in itself would indicate the seriousness of this sin in God's eyes.
Again if you search through the Scriptures you will discover that this particular sin is almost always associated with willful apostasy and departure from God.
This does not lessen other sins but simply highlights why sodomy should be opposed in the fashion you have referred to.
Brian McClung
Dear Sir, thank you for your reply which hat i read in your email and again on here. It is close to midnight and I have work to go to in the morning so I will reply fully DV later,
But in the interim a bit concerned over the use of the word # heinous # and I wonder in your opinion which is the more #heinous#, murder, abortion, adultery, the murder of oneself, or the love of a woman by a woman.
gerard
Gerard
The word 'heinous' comes from the Shorter Catechism Question 83 which is part of the Westminster Standards which are the doctrinal creed of Presbyterian Churches.
The question asks: Are all transgressions of the law equally heinous?
The answer given is: Some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.
All sin is heinous. One sin is sufficient to condemn every one of us to hell and which of us has only ever committed only one sin. We are all condemned and in need of a Saviour.
The sins you mentioned are all 'more heinous' sins. However, the point I made in the previous reply still stands:
God didn't destroy whole cities by fire and brimstone for their committing of other sins but He did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain for this particular sin. That in itself would indicate the seriousness of this sin in God's eyes.
Brian McClung
Dear Sir,
I just wanted to say that I started to communicate with you further on this subject last saturday morning but the more I get into this catechism indoctrination publication the more complex this whole issue becomes.
for instance " Sins committed more immediately against God, or the first table of his law, are
more heinous in their own nature, than sins committed more immediately against
man, or any precept of the second table. Likewise, some sins against the second
table, are more heinous in themselves, than other sins against the said table."
Amazing considering that the KJV of the Bible describes only 1 sin as #heinous# that being in Job and called adultery. The KJV makes no reference to more or less heinous as it lists the word #heinous# only once.
you commented "The sins you mentioned are all 'more heinous' sins. However, the point I made in the previous reply still stands:
God didn't destroy whole cities by fire and brimstone for their committing of other sins but He did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain for this particular sin. That in itself would indicate the seriousness of this sin in God's eyes. " pray tell me the more serious sin than this that caused God to not only destroy a group of cities, in fact destroyed every single city town hamlet farmstead, killing all mankind and every beast of the field apart from the few people and animals that were in the ark.
That must have been a far more serious sin, if there is such a thing as degrees of seriousness of sin, pray tell me what that sin was, and if it is practised today, what steps you take to highlight it to the people?
I have had the bible as an integral part of my life for 44 years now, and it has been sufficient for me, I never needed a supplement for it.
I am not sure of your answer to my previous Question I wonder in your opinion which is the more #heinous#, murder, abortion, adultery, the murder of oneself, or the love of a woman by a woman. I am not sure If I am reading you correct, can you simplify please your answer 1 the most heinous, 2,3 etc. more heinous than the following but less heinous than the former etc, would be much obliged,
a list in other words most heinous at top least of the heinous's at the bottom.
thanks
Gerard
Gerard
Maybe Gerard if you spent some time pondering the Scriptures and the whole explanation of the catechism you might understand the issue.
Just because the English Scriptures only use the word 'heinous' once doesn't mean that is the sum total of usage. The Hebrew word translated 'heinous crime', Job 31:11, to which you have alluded, actually appears 29 times in the Hebrew Bible; 14 times it is translated in the AV as 'lewdness', 4 times 'wickedness', 3 times 'mischief', etc. Furthermore it comes from another Hebrew word which appears a further 13 times in the Old Testament.
While I certainly hold to Authorised Version of the Scriptures as the most faithful English Version available, my theology is based upon the teaching of the inspired Scriptures and not a mistaken assumption which is based on a cursory reading of the English Bible. Which is what you have engaged in!
The men who compiled the Catechism, and this explanation that you have quoted from, were men who understood the Hebrew and Greek originals and well as reading the English Translation.
I am going to post the whole of the explanation for Question 83 of the Shorter Catechism to which you alluded to in your comment. It was taken from James Fisher's explanation of the Catechism which is itself in the form of questions and answers. Your quote was from question 7 of Fisher's explanation.
If you study it, and the Scripture portions referred to, I believe you will find a satisfactory answer there. I don't see the benefit of repeating here in a very shorten form what can read and profited from in its fulness.
I am therefore going to post the whole section dealing with Question 83 of the Shorter Catechism as a separate post on the blog.
Brian McClung
Post a Comment