The personal blog of Rev Brian McClung,
Minister of Newtownabbey Free Presbyterian Church &
Administrator of Newtownabbey Independent Christian School.
Title & Purpose
Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble:
for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand, Joel 2:1.
All quotations from the Scriptures will be from the Authorised Version - the best and most accurate English translation of the Scriptures.
Please see Sermons & Articles further down the Blog about why the Authorised Version is the best and most accurate English translation of the Scriptures
and why we reject the many perversions of the Scriptures, including those so beloved of many neo-evangelicals at present such as ESV & NKJV.
Beware of the Errors in The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible!
A few photographs taken at the Free Presbyterian protest against the Gay Pride parade in Belfast last Saturday.
19 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Really good to learn of your witness at the top of Waring Street. We had a good time at City Hall where around ninety gathered from different churches in a united Christian witness against sodomy in Belfast.
It is good particularly that perhaps 150 Christians were out in total but given the number of churches in Belfast we should have three times that number at least !
Nevertheless - great that the Word of God went forth. Romans 1 v 16
Checkout Newtownabbey Times. Alderman Billy Ball has spoken out against an event at the Shoreline Festival later this month. This would be an opportunity for Open Air witness.
Firstly, your criticism would carry a great deal more weight if you had the courage to put your name to it. No one, and certainly not a Christian, should be afraid of identifying themselves with what they say or write.
Secondly, The Free Presbyterian Church has protested at many different events, etc. that have been contrary to the Word of God. We are commanded to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, that includes doctrine and public morals.
This is most definitely necessary when you have the likes of Rev Chris Hudson of All Souls Non- Subscribing Presbyterian Church in Belfast deny the teaching of Scripture on this matter.
Thirdly, you utterly fail to understand the nature of Sodomy. Sodomy is no ordinary sin.
As the Shorter Catechism teaches there are some sins more heinous than others. Sodomy is such a sin.
Romans ch 1 describes it as uncleanness, v24; vile affections, v26; against nature, v26; unseemly, v27.
The protest against this parade has been carried on for seventeen years by Rev McIlveen and rightly so.
An individual who heard the open air witness attended the evening service in Sandown FPC the next evening and has subsequently meet Rev McIlveen to speak to him about spiritual matters. Them that honour God God will honour!
One of the main reasons for posting anonymously is because my opinion on this matter may change. Maybe the Lord will direct me to join your Church in condemning sodomy in such an in-your-face sort of way. Right now, I feel like it is too judgmental a method, if you read onto Romans 2, it teaches us about how we shouldn't be judging these people.
The Lord Jesus Christ himself said that some sins are worse than others, of course this is true. We should make people aware of sin, but as Paul instructs, in a kind and gentle way.
What we should be doing is spreading the Gospel to all sinners and not just the sodomites.
In a civil society, people should be free to do what they want, as long as they do not commit crime (against other people). From my reading of John 8; sodomy, adultery, etc are not to punished, it is a moral problem and not a criminal problem. Just like overeating (gluttony is just as sinful as sodomy). Moral problem, not criminal.
We should be against same-sex marriage, liberal sex education and should always condemn same-sex relationships, bring back Section 28, but ultimately their lifestyle is up to them. Only the Lord can change their hearts.
Just because someone came along to your church doesn't mean that your method is the most godly... the Lord uses all things for the good of his elect Church (Romans 8).
Ultimately I am on your side, but feel that you are being a tad judgmental towards people. But like I said above, my opinion and style of presenting the Gospel may change, hence remaining anonymous.
Your argument for hiding your identity is entirely threadbare. In my view there is no justification for hiding your identity. If you wish to criticise others have the courage to identity yourself.
1. The Scriptures do not forbid the judging of sin. For you to suggest it does indicates you have not read the N.T. closely or you are parroting what someone else is using as an excuse for doing nothing.
I could multiply examples but I will give you one. Paul said of immoral conduct taking place in Corinth: For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, 1 Cor 5:3-5.
It is unscriptural judgment that is forbidden not judging sin per se.
2. Your comments on people being free to do what they want in society beggars belief. Murder, theft, slander are crimes which presently carry a civil sanction on the person who commits them and so should immoral sins which break the seventh commandment. If the breaking of one commandment deserves a civil sanction so does the breaking of the rest.
Are you saying that people can murder, steal, slander, etc and there is no warrant to punish the evil doer? That it is only a civil matter and not one that God has nothing to say. That is logical extension of the argument you present? In what sense then does the civil power carry the sword as taught in Romans ch 13?
I readily confess that the sanction is different from O.T. to N.T. In the OT the sanction for these crimes was often death. Apart from murder that is not the case in the NT.
The decriminalising of sodomy has been going on for the last 45 years or so. I do not agree that it should have been decriminalised. Those who voted for such a course will answer to a higher Judge one day. I remember reading in Tony Benn's diaries of his delight when this course was followed when he was in parliament.
Neither do I agree with the further decriminalising of the blasphemy laws that many are lobbying for at present.
Your argument that 'ultimately their lifestyle is up to them' is totally erroneous. Legislators are required by God to uphold His moral law. That is why there was a plethora of moral requirements upon the statute book of our nation for centuries but in recent decades have been thrown overboard one by one. Our forefathers were right, your line of thinking is entirely wrong.
3. As to presenting the gospel to sinners of any persuasion, there can be no effective presenting of the gospel without first dealing with sin. The terrors of the law must work conviction in the heart before there will ever be a genuine seeking of the gospel remedy. That is what is wrong with a good deal of 'gospel' preaching today. It is a gospel without the law, a gospel without repentance. It leads to a form of godliness which has no power, 2 Tim 3:5.
You are not the first and you will no doubt not be the last to criticise the FPC for their stand on public morals. However we believe in publicly and forthrightly standing up for the truth.
Your type of criticism would most likely have been directed at the Lord Jesus when He cleansed the temple and drove out the moneychangers, etc; or when he condemned the Scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites. Was this not be a little harsh and judgmental to use your words.
Your argument for hiding your identity is entirely threadbare. In my view there is no justification for hiding your identity. If you wish to criticise others have the courage to identity yourself.
1. The Scriptures do not forbid the judging of sin. For you to suggest it does indicates you have not read the N.T. closely or you are parroting what someone else is using as an excuse for doing nothing.
I could multiply examples but I will give you one. Paul said of immoral conduct taking place in Corinth: For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, 1 Cor 5:3-5.
It is unscriptural judgment that is forbidden not judging sin per se.
2. Your comments on people being free to do what they want in society beggars belief. Murder, theft, slander are crimes which presently carry a civil sanction on the person who commits them and so should immoral sins which break the seventh commandment. If the breaking of one commandment deserves a civil sanction so does the breaking of the rest.
Are you saying that people can murder, steal, slander, etc and there is no warrant to punish the evil doer? That it is only a civil matter and not one that God has nothing to say. That is logical extension of the argument you present? In what sense then does the civil power carry the sword as taught in Romans ch 13?
I readily confess that the sanction is different from O.T. to N.T. In the OT the sanction for these crimes was often death. Apart from murder that is not the case in the NT.
The decriminalising of sodomy has been going on for the last 45 years or so. I do not agree that it should have been decriminalised. Those who voted for such a course will answer to a higher Judge one day. I remember reading in Tony Benn's diaries of his delight when this course was followed when he was in parliament.
Neither do I agree with the further decriminalising of the blasphemy laws that many are lobbying for at present.
Your argument that 'ultimately their lifestyle is up to them' is totally erroneous. Legislators are required by God to uphold His moral law. That is why there was a plethora of moral requirements upon the statute book of our nation for centuries but in recent decades have been thrown overboard one by one. Our forefathers were right, your line of thinking is entirely wrong.
Your argument for hiding your identity is entirely threadbare. In my view there is no justification for hiding your identity. If you wish to criticise others have the courage to identity yourself.
1. The Scriptures do not forbid the judging of sin. For you to suggest it does indicates you have not read the N.T. closely or you are parroting what someone else is using as an excuse for doing nothing.
I could multiply examples but I will give you one. Paul said of immoral conduct taking place in Corinth: For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, 1 Cor 5:3-5.
It is unscriptural judgment that is forbidden not judging sin per se.
2. Your comments on people being free to do what they want in society beggars belief. Murder, theft, slander are crimes which presently carry a civil sanction on the person who commits them and so should immoral sins which break the seventh commandment. If the breaking of one commandment deserves a civil sanction so does the breaking of the rest.
Are you saying that people can murder, steal, slander, etc and there is no warrant to punish the evil doer? That it is only a civil matter and not one that God has nothing to say. That is logical extension of the argument you present? In what sense then does the civil power carry the sword as taught in Romans ch 13?
I readily confess that the sanction is different from O.T. to N.T. In the OT the sanction for these crimes was often death. Apart from murder that is not the case in the NT.
The decriminalising of sodomy has been going on for the last 45 years or so. I do not agree that it should have been decriminalised. Those who voted for such a course will answer to a higher Judge one day. I remember reading in Tony Benn's diaries of his delight when this course was followed when he was in parliament.
Neither do I agree with the further decriminalising of the blasphemy laws that many are lobbying for at present.
Your argument that 'ultimately their lifestyle is up to them' is totally erroneous. Legislators are required by God to uphold His moral law. That is why there was a plethora of moral requirements upon the statute book of our nation for centuries but in recent decades have been thrown overboard one by one. Our forefathers were right, your line of thinking is entirely wrong.
3. As to presenting the gospel to sinners of any persuasion, there can be no effective presenting of the gospel without first dealing with sin. The terrors of the law must work conviction in the heart before there will ever be a genuine seeking of the gospel remedy. That is what is wrong with a good deal of 'gospel' preaching today. It is a gospel without the law, a gospel without repentance. It leads to a form of godliness which has no power, 2 Tim 3:5.
You are not the first and you will no doubt not be the last to criticise the FPC for their stand on public morals. However we believe in publicly and forthrightly standing up for the truth.
Your type of criticism would most likely have been directed at the Lord Jesus when He cleansed the temple and drove out the moneychangers, etc; or when he condemned the Scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites. Was this not be a little harsh and judgmental to use your words.
So, Brian, do you believe that disobedient children should be delt with in a court of law? What about if someone goes to McDonalds and eats too much? The greedy? What if someone has too many possesions and love their possesions more than God? Should the state intervene?
The difference between murder, theft, slander, etc is that these are things that affect everyone else. What people do in private doesn't necessarily harm us. The Samarian woman that Jesus met at the well, instead of calling for her to be punished, he simply advised her of the Gospel. The people in the temple were doing that which we could justify as being (on the level of society) criminal.
Your ideas seem to be more like an extremist Muslim's ways of thinking. They want everyone else to live as they do. If a person wants to eat pork, they should get punished according to them, even though what food a person eats, doesn't affect anyone else.
I always try to look at the heart of the Gospel (being born again). Once you are born again, then you know how to live. Focus on that instead.
I'm in full support of blasphemy laws being put in place. I can justify this in a court of law, because blasphemy may cause offense to the public (ie in the media, or wherever). I'm also in favour of statues and things being removed from the outsides of places of worship, as they may cause offense.
I wouldn't ban the Roman Catholic Church, my old associates there should be free to worship, even though I find the mass filled with darkness and sin, they should be free to do it, in private.
My position, I feel is a Biblical one. If you can convince me otherwise, I will accept what you are telling me.
Anonymous [I will again reply in more than one post]
The position you adopt is entirely the opposite of historic, orthodox, Biblical religion. It is also full of holes.
It is not a matter of wanting people to 'live as I do'. It is a matter that every individual upon the face of the earth is required to live by the law of God. Whether they recognise that truth or not is immaterial. Their Creator is also their Lawgiver and requires such.
Civil Government is an ordinance of God. So says Rom 13. If you care to read that chapter through you will see that the Moral law of God is reiterated and tied in with the duties of the civil power. They are required to uphold God's law. Love is said to be the fulfilling of the law.
Which law? Man's law or God's law? Paul argues that it is God's law, v9. One of those laws is the seventh commandment that deals with moral uncleanness. All of society are required to live by God's moral law. It is against this law that men and woman will be judged when they ultimately stand before the great Judge of all the earth.
Furthermore, It is totally unscriptural to say that when you are born again you know how to live.
Why would the New Testament be full of instructions and commands to the different churches if they knew how they were to live?
Why were there problems that had to be resolved, some by a synod meeting of the NT church, others by the apostles giving commands by direct revelation from God, if they all knew how to live?
The truth is that we do not know how to live even when born again. It is true that the principle of new obedience is planted within us by grace. But as to how that principle develops we are in need of being taught continually.
There are times when a Christian does things that they do not know instinctively to be wrong. The Bible teaches about the sin of ignorance. According to you this sin no longer exist.
Believers have to be taught. That is one of the duties of ministers of the gospel. They are to preach the word…reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering, 2 Tim 4:2.
Again it is totally unscriptural to say that what people do in private doesn't necessarily harm us.
Whether it harms us is not the issue. The issue is whether it is against the law of God. Your line of argument is similar to those who argue that people should not be punished for 'victimless crimes', such as shoplifting from major retailers. Whether there is a victim is immaterial. In fact, the argument that can be made is that the victim in every breaking of the Moral law is the glory of God because the law if a reflection of the nature of God.
However, what happens in private soon comes out into the public. That is how it has been with immoral sins of any kind. That which commenced in secret in the back streets is now flaunted on the high street. On of the purposes of God's moral law is to curb sinful behaviour.
Sin whether committed in secret or in public is seen by God and we are taught that it is a reproach to any nation. It brings the judgment of God down upon a nation: Righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people, Prov 14:34.
While I am happy to continue the discussion I have no intention of doing so with someone who stands in the shadows. Therefore, if you wish to do so you need to cease hiding behind the 'anonymous' tag!
I completely agree with you that as Christians we should be aiming to legislate things based on our Christian morality. This is easy to do when something directly victimises us. But more difficult when it doesn't necessarily threaten society as a whole. Same-sex marriage makes a mockey of what marriage is supposed to be (a privilige between a man and a woman. The reason that it is a priviliged relationship is because they can bring children into the world). The "gay pride" parade could be banned on the basis of public health. Ask any unbiased medical doctor and they'll tell you just how unhealthy a lifestyle it actually is. Durex published an article encouraging people to abstain from sodomy altogether - they had done their research and found how dangerous this is.
I used to say that fornication, homosexuality, etc should be banned, but then it came to thinking of a punishment for it, I just couldn't. So, I would have said "it should be banned, but not criminal..." and then I figured if it was banned, it would somehow take away a person's free will to make godly or ungodly decisions.
I moved onto thinking that it is better just to witness to homosexual/lesbian/fornicating people as sinners and not criminals worthy of punishment. I know it isn't an excuse, but it makes me feel more relaxed in this dirty world when I have pity for people that I come across in every day life, instead of feeling that they should get punished.
It never can be said that sin doesn't threaten society. As the Bible reminds us: evil communications corrupt good manners, 1 Cor 15:33; A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, Gal 5:9.
Sin of any kind is like leaven or yeast, it spreads and infects the whole lump. Sin tolerated in private will soon spread to the public realm and become acceptable. This is what had happened with sodomy since it was decriminalised.
There are natural limits in the extent to which a civil power can go in the pursuit of the breaking of God's commands. In the past fines and imprisonment were the consequences.
The implementation of God's moral law in society needs to be more than a top down diktat. In the present climate there would never be an accepting of the standards of God because society has departed so far from God.
In the past godly legislators were elected by the people and both the people in the majority and legislators has regard for God's law. Sadly that is not the case today.
For there to be a return to those times we need a reformation of society, from top to bottom where they will be a willingness to conform to God's laws as in the past.
As to religious freedom it was Biblical Protestantism that first practiced religious freedom. It means that an individual has the right to worship according to their conscience.
"As to religious freedom it was Biblical Protestantism that first practiced religious freedom. It means that an individual has the right to worship according to their conscience."
Does this mean that you would support the right for the Roman catholic church to provide schools for the children of roman catholics?
19 comments:
Really good to learn of your witness
at the top of Waring Street. We had a good time at City Hall where around ninety gathered from different
churches in a united Christian witness against sodomy in Belfast.
It is good particularly that perhaps 150 Christians were out in total but given the number of churches in Belfast we should have three times that number at least !
Nevertheless - great that the Word of God went forth. Romans 1 v 16
Checkout Newtownabbey Times. Alderman Billy Ball has spoken out against an event at the Shoreline Festival later this month. This would be an opportunity for Open Air witness.
Is this really the best way to express the Gospel?
From my experience it is better to actually go and talk to these people.
Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Whether someone is a sodomite or not, if they don't trust in Jesus Christ as their Savior, they wont be guranteed a place in Heaven.
How can we skin a fish that we haven't caught?
This isn't like Islam or Buddhism where people believe if they live a moral life they'll receive a paradise of some sort.
Living a moral life, giving honour to God in every way, comes after we are born again.
We should be focusing on winning people over to Christ, instead of focusing on particular sins.
I don't stand outside shops at the Abbeycentre that sell immodest clothing with signs telling people that they are dressing immodestly...
Please think about this.
Anonymous
Firstly, your criticism would carry a great deal more weight if you had the courage to put your name to it. No one, and certainly not a Christian, should be afraid of identifying themselves with what they say or write.
Secondly, The Free Presbyterian Church has protested at many different events, etc. that have been contrary to the Word of God. We are commanded to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, that includes doctrine and public morals.
This is most definitely necessary when you have the likes of Rev Chris Hudson of All Souls Non- Subscribing Presbyterian Church in Belfast deny the teaching of Scripture on this matter.
Thirdly, you utterly fail to understand the nature of Sodomy. Sodomy is no ordinary sin.
As the Shorter Catechism teaches there are some sins more heinous than others. Sodomy is such a sin.
Romans ch 1 describes it as uncleanness, v24; vile affections, v26; against nature, v26; unseemly, v27.
The protest against this parade has been carried on for seventeen years by Rev McIlveen and rightly so.
An individual who heard the open air witness attended the evening service in Sandown FPC the next evening and has subsequently meet Rev McIlveen to speak to him about spiritual matters. Them that honour God God will honour!
Rev Brian McClung
One of the main reasons for posting anonymously is because my opinion on this matter may change. Maybe the Lord will direct me to join your Church in condemning sodomy in such an in-your-face sort of way. Right now, I feel like it is too judgmental a method, if you read onto Romans 2, it teaches us about how we shouldn't be judging these people.
The Lord Jesus Christ himself said that some sins are worse than others, of course this is true. We should make people aware of sin, but as Paul instructs, in a kind and gentle way.
What we should be doing is spreading the Gospel to all sinners and not just the sodomites.
In a civil society, people should be free to do what they want, as long as they do not commit crime (against other people). From my reading of John 8; sodomy, adultery, etc are not to punished, it is a moral problem and not a criminal problem. Just like overeating (gluttony is just as sinful as sodomy). Moral problem, not criminal.
We should be against same-sex marriage, liberal sex education and should always condemn same-sex relationships, bring back Section 28, but ultimately their lifestyle is up to them. Only the Lord can change their hearts.
Just because someone came along to your church doesn't mean that your method is the most godly... the Lord uses all things for the good of his elect Church (Romans 8).
Ultimately I am on your side, but feel that you are being a tad judgmental towards people. But like I said above, my opinion and style of presenting the Gospel may change, hence remaining anonymous.
Anonymous
Your argument for hiding your identity is entirely threadbare. In my view there is no justification for hiding your identity. If you wish to criticise others have the courage to identity yourself.
1. The Scriptures do not forbid the judging of sin. For you to suggest it does indicates you have not read the N.T. closely or you are parroting what someone else is using as an excuse for doing nothing.
I could multiply examples but I will give you one. Paul said of immoral conduct taking place in Corinth:
For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, 1 Cor 5:3-5.
It is unscriptural judgment that is forbidden not judging sin per se.
2. Your comments on people being free to do what they want in society beggars belief. Murder, theft, slander are crimes which presently carry a civil sanction on the person who commits them and so should immoral sins which break the seventh commandment. If the breaking of one commandment deserves a civil sanction so does the breaking of the rest.
Are you saying that people can murder, steal, slander, etc and there is no warrant to punish the evil doer? That it is only a civil matter and not one that God has nothing to say. That is logical extension of the argument you present? In what sense then does the civil power carry the sword as taught in Romans ch 13?
I readily confess that the sanction is different from O.T. to N.T. In the OT the sanction for these crimes was often death. Apart from murder that is not the case in the NT.
The decriminalising of sodomy has been going on for the last 45 years or so. I do not agree that it should have been decriminalised. Those who voted for such a course will answer to a higher Judge one day. I remember reading in Tony Benn's diaries of his delight when this course was followed when he was in parliament.
Neither do I agree with the further decriminalising of the blasphemy laws that many are lobbying for at present.
Your argument that 'ultimately their lifestyle is up to them' is totally erroneous. Legislators are required by God to uphold His moral law. That is why there was a plethora of moral requirements upon the statute book of our nation for centuries but in recent decades have been thrown overboard one by one. Our forefathers were right, your line of thinking is entirely wrong.
3. As to presenting the gospel to sinners of any persuasion, there can be no effective presenting of the gospel without first dealing with sin. The terrors of the law must work conviction in the heart before there will ever be a genuine seeking of the gospel remedy. That is what is wrong with a good deal of 'gospel' preaching today. It is a gospel without the law, a gospel without repentance. It leads to a form of godliness which has no power, 2 Tim 3:5.
You are not the first and you will no doubt not be the last to criticise the FPC for their stand on public morals. However we believe in publicly and forthrightly standing up for the truth.
Your type of criticism would most likely have been directed at the Lord Jesus when He cleansed the temple and drove out the moneychangers, etc; or when he condemned the Scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites. Was this not be a little harsh and judgmental to use your words.
Brian McClung
Anonymous
Your argument for hiding your identity is entirely threadbare. In my view there is no justification for hiding your identity. If you wish to criticise others have the courage to identity yourself.
1. The Scriptures do not forbid the judging of sin. For you to suggest it does indicates you have not read the N.T. closely or you are parroting what someone else is using as an excuse for doing nothing.
I could multiply examples but I will give you one. Paul said of immoral conduct taking place in Corinth:
For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, 1 Cor 5:3-5.
It is unscriptural judgment that is forbidden not judging sin per se.
2. Your comments on people being free to do what they want in society beggars belief. Murder, theft, slander are crimes which presently carry a civil sanction on the person who commits them and so should immoral sins which break the seventh commandment. If the breaking of one commandment deserves a civil sanction so does the breaking of the rest.
Are you saying that people can murder, steal, slander, etc and there is no warrant to punish the evil doer? That it is only a civil matter and not one that God has nothing to say. That is logical extension of the argument you present? In what sense then does the civil power carry the sword as taught in Romans ch 13?
I readily confess that the sanction is different from O.T. to N.T. In the OT the sanction for these crimes was often death. Apart from murder that is not the case in the NT.
The decriminalising of sodomy has been going on for the last 45 years or so. I do not agree that it should have been decriminalised. Those who voted for such a course will answer to a higher Judge one day. I remember reading in Tony Benn's diaries of his delight when this course was followed when he was in parliament.
Neither do I agree with the further decriminalising of the blasphemy laws that many are lobbying for at present.
Your argument that 'ultimately their lifestyle is up to them' is totally erroneous. Legislators are required by God to uphold His moral law. That is why there was a plethora of moral requirements upon the statute book of our nation for centuries but in recent decades have been thrown overboard one by one. Our forefathers were right, your line of thinking is entirely wrong.
Brian McClung
Anonymous
I will answer your comments in a number of posts:
Your argument for hiding your identity is entirely threadbare. In my view there is no justification for hiding your identity. If you wish to criticise others have the courage to identity yourself.
1. The Scriptures do not forbid the judging of sin. For you to suggest it does indicates you have not read the N.T. closely or you are parroting what someone else is using as an excuse for doing nothing.
I could multiply examples but I will give you one. Paul said of immoral conduct taking place in Corinth:
For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, 1 Cor 5:3-5.
It is unscriptural judgment that is forbidden not judging sin per se.
Brian McClung
Anonymous
2. Your comments on people being free to do what they want in society beggars belief. Murder, theft, slander are crimes which presently carry a civil sanction on the person who commits them and so should immoral sins which break the seventh commandment. If the breaking of one commandment deserves a civil sanction so does the breaking of the rest.
Are you saying that people can murder, steal, slander, etc and there is no warrant to punish the evil doer? That it is only a civil matter and not one that God has nothing to say. That is logical extension of the argument you present? In what sense then does the civil power carry the sword as taught in Romans ch 13?
I readily confess that the sanction is different from O.T. to N.T. In the OT the sanction for these crimes was often death. Apart from murder that is not the case in the NT.
The decriminalising of sodomy has been going on for the last 45 years or so. I do not agree that it should have been decriminalised. Those who voted for such a course will answer to a higher Judge one day. I remember reading in Tony Benn's diaries of his delight when this course was followed when he was in parliament.
Neither do I agree with the further decriminalising of the blasphemy laws that many are lobbying for at present.
Your argument that 'ultimately their lifestyle is up to them' is totally erroneous. Legislators are required by God to uphold His moral law. That is why there was a plethora of moral requirements upon the statute book of our nation for centuries but in recent decades have been thrown overboard one by one. Our forefathers were right, your line of thinking is entirely wrong.
Brian McClung
Anonymous
3. As to presenting the gospel to sinners of any persuasion, there can be no effective presenting of the gospel without first dealing with sin. The terrors of the law must work conviction in the heart before there will ever be a genuine seeking of the gospel remedy. That is what is wrong with a good deal of 'gospel' preaching today. It is a gospel without the law, a gospel without repentance. It leads to a form of godliness which has no power, 2 Tim 3:5.
You are not the first and you will no doubt not be the last to criticise the FPC for their stand on public morals. However we believe in publicly and forthrightly standing up for the truth.
Your type of criticism would most likely have been directed at the Lord Jesus when He cleansed the temple and drove out the moneychangers, etc; or when he condemned the Scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites. Was this not be a little harsh and judgmental to use your words.
Brian McClung
So, Brian, do you believe that disobedient children should be delt with in a court of law? What about if someone goes to McDonalds and eats too much? The greedy? What if someone has too many possesions and love their possesions more than God? Should the state intervene?
The difference between murder, theft, slander, etc is that these are things that affect everyone else. What people do in private doesn't necessarily harm us. The Samarian woman that Jesus met at the well, instead of calling for her to be punished, he simply advised her of the Gospel. The people in the temple were doing that which we could justify as being (on the level of society) criminal.
Your ideas seem to be more like an extremist Muslim's ways of thinking. They want everyone else to live as they do. If a person wants to eat pork, they should get punished according to them, even though what food a person eats, doesn't affect anyone else.
I always try to look at the heart of the Gospel (being born again). Once you are born again, then you know how to live. Focus on that instead.
I'm in full support of blasphemy laws being put in place. I can justify this in a court of law, because blasphemy may cause offense to the public (ie in the media, or wherever). I'm also in favour of statues and things being removed from the outsides of places of worship, as they may cause offense.
I wouldn't ban the Roman Catholic Church, my old associates there should be free to worship, even though I find the mass filled with darkness and sin, they should be free to do it, in private.
My position, I feel is a Biblical one. If you can convince me otherwise, I will accept what you are telling me.
Anonymous [I will again reply in more than one post]
The position you adopt is entirely the opposite of historic, orthodox, Biblical religion. It is also full of holes.
It is not a matter of wanting people to 'live as I do'. It is a matter that every individual upon the face of the earth is required to live by the law of God. Whether they recognise that truth or not is immaterial. Their Creator is also their Lawgiver and requires such.
Civil Government is an ordinance of God. So says Rom 13. If you care to read that chapter through you will see that the Moral law of God is reiterated and tied in with the duties of the civil power. They are required to uphold God's law. Love is said to be the fulfilling of the law.
Which law? Man's law or God's law? Paul argues that it is God's law, v9. One of those laws is the seventh commandment that deals with moral uncleanness. All of society are required to live by God's moral law. It is against this law that men and woman will be judged when they ultimately stand before the great Judge of all the earth.
Brian McClung
Anonymous
Furthermore, It is totally unscriptural to say that when you are born again you know how to live.
Why would the New Testament be full of instructions and commands to the different churches if they knew how they were to live?
Why were there problems that had to be resolved, some by a synod meeting of the NT church, others by the apostles giving commands by direct revelation from God, if they all knew how to live?
The truth is that we do not know how to live even when born again. It is true that the principle of new obedience is planted within us by grace. But as to how that principle develops we are in need of being taught continually.
There are times when a Christian does things that they do not know instinctively to be wrong. The Bible teaches about the sin of ignorance. According to you this sin no longer exist.
Believers have to be taught. That is one of the duties of ministers of the gospel. They are to preach the word…reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering, 2 Tim 4:2.
Anonymous
Again it is totally unscriptural to say that what people do in private doesn't necessarily harm us.
Whether it harms us is not the issue. The issue is whether it is against the law of God. Your line of argument is similar to those who argue that people should not be punished for 'victimless crimes', such as shoplifting from major retailers. Whether there is a victim is immaterial. In fact, the argument that can be made is that the victim in every breaking of the Moral law is the glory of God because the law if a reflection of the nature of God.
However, what happens in private soon comes out into the public. That is how it has been with immoral sins of any kind. That which commenced in secret in the back streets is now flaunted on the high street. On of the purposes of God's moral law is to curb sinful behaviour.
Sin whether committed in secret or in public is seen by God and we are taught that it is a reproach to any nation. It brings the judgment of God down upon a nation: Righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people, Prov 14:34.
While I am happy to continue the discussion I have no intention of doing so with someone who stands in the shadows. Therefore, if you wish to do so you need to cease hiding behind the 'anonymous' tag!
I appreciate your response.
I completely agree with you that as Christians we should be aiming to legislate things based on our Christian morality. This is easy to do when something directly victimises us. But more difficult when it doesn't necessarily threaten society as a whole. Same-sex marriage makes a mockey of what marriage is supposed to be (a privilige between a man and a woman. The reason that it is a priviliged relationship is because they can bring children into the world). The "gay pride" parade could be banned on the basis of public health. Ask any unbiased medical doctor and they'll tell you just how unhealthy a lifestyle it actually is. Durex published an article encouraging people to abstain from sodomy altogether - they had done their research and found how dangerous this is.
I used to say that fornication, homosexuality, etc should be banned, but then it came to thinking of a punishment for it, I just couldn't. So, I would have said "it should be banned, but not criminal..." and then I figured if it was banned, it would somehow take away a person's free will to make godly or ungodly decisions.
I moved onto thinking that it is better just to witness to homosexual/lesbian/fornicating people as sinners and not criminals worthy of punishment. I know it isn't an excuse, but it makes me feel more relaxed in this dirty world when I have pity for people that I come across in every day life, instead of feeling that they should get punished.
What do you think a suitable punishment is for:
1) fornication
2) adultery
3) sodomy
4) lesbianism
5) gluttony
6) sloth
7) anger
What do you think about freedom of religion?
John [that's a start, a surname would help also]
It never can be said that sin doesn't threaten society. As the Bible reminds us: evil communications corrupt good manners, 1 Cor 15:33; A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, Gal 5:9.
Sin of any kind is like leaven or yeast, it spreads and infects the whole lump. Sin tolerated in private will soon spread to the public realm and become acceptable. This is what had happened with sodomy since it was decriminalised.
There are natural limits in the extent to which a civil power can go in the pursuit of the breaking of God's commands. In the past fines and imprisonment were the consequences.
The implementation of God's moral law in society needs to be more than a top down diktat. In the present climate there would never be an accepting of the standards of God because society has departed so far from God.
In the past godly legislators were elected by the people and both the people in the majority and legislators has regard for God's law. Sadly that is not the case today.
For there to be a return to those times we need a reformation of society, from top to bottom where they will be a willingness to conform to God's laws as in the past.
As to religious freedom it was Biblical Protestantism that first practiced religious freedom. It means that an individual has the right to worship according to their conscience.
Brian McClung
I am starting to change my opinion.
Thank you for your posts.
"As to religious freedom it was Biblical Protestantism that first practiced religious freedom. It means that an individual has the right to worship according to their conscience."
Does this mean that you would support the right for the Roman catholic church to provide schools for the children of roman catholics?
Anonymous [no.2] The same points I made to Anonymous No 1 apply to you. If you wish to have an exchange on this blog you need to give your name.
The simple answer to your question is yes. I don't understand why you would have thought it to be anything else.
Your cannot claim a liberty for yourselves that you won't extend to anyone else. That is not civil and religious liberty.
It is a totally separate issue whether Romanism should have their schools funded 100% by the taxpayer as they presently have in Northern Ireland.
Post a Comment