Menu

This Protestant Denomination Just Blessed Same-Sex Marriage

S
sermonindex

France's United Protestant Church (EPUdF) voted on Sunday to allow pastors to bless same-sex marriages, two years after Paris legalized gay nuptials amid protests backed by the majority Roman Catholic Church.

The EPUdF, created in 2012 in a merger of France's Lutheran and Reformed churches, said its synod also agreed that individual pastors or parishes can decide whether or not they will organize such blessings.

Protestants make up about two percent of the population in France, and two-thirds of them are evangelicals and mostly against same-sex marriage. About two-thirds of the French identify themselves as Catholic, although regular church attendance is in the single figure percentages.

"The synod has decided to take a step forward in accompanying people and these couples by opening the possibility of celebrating liturgical blessings if they want," said Laurent Schlumberger, president of the United Protestant Church.

The vote produced a large majority for the blessings, but Schlumberger acknowledged that "different opinions remain in our Church on this question."

from: http://www.charismanews.com/world/49680-this-protestant-denomination-just-blessed-same-sex-marriage

G
ginnyrose

I expect in time most 'church' bodies will accept homosexual unions just like they do divorce and remarriage. It is not a matter of if but when. Even the larger church body of which I belong to - Mennonite - is grappling with this issue. Churches are being realigned into different conferences based upon their acceptance of same-sex unions. And it was not all that long ago when divorce was an issue. Now that it isn't, pressure is there to accept women pastors and same sex marriages.

Those who believe in Biblical marriages are few and far in between. And it is causing a lot of grief - can't trust those who share your religious heritage anymore.

Sandra

S
Sree

Sister the root for all these problems is - Churches are trying to please men than to please God. Paul clearly said that if I am trying to please men then I cannot serve God (Gal 1:10).
But this attitude to please men is naturally inside us. We kind of think that serving men and pleasing them is to please God. But that is not true.

I am frequently invited to a pentecostal Church to share God's word. I am very careful not to disturb their doctrine and speak on my understanding of Holy Spirit. But one brother who accompanied me for this meeting told me to speak what the Lord wants me to speak rather than trying to win their approval. If the Lord wants me to speak on incorrect usage of tongues then I have to speak, even if they stop inviting me as a speaker anymore.

L
lovejt

i was just wondering.......was there ever a big uproar 'within the church' when divorces were becoming more acceptable in church? During the 70s? When did the divorce rate start to go upwards? It must've been gradual at first then suddenly went up quickly?

M
MrBillPro

I understand sin is sin, but for folks to compare divorce to being homosexual is not comparing apples to apples. Divorce and remarriage is not applicable to the same-sex marriage debate. First of all, there are arguably some circumstances where divorce and remarriage are biblically permitted. Most evangelical Christians acknowledge that sexual immorality can dissolve a marital union, and that innocent party is then free to remarry (Matt. 5:32).

Homosexuality is totally different, Homosexuality is a lifestyle characterized by a particular sexual behavior, the endorsement of which requires the rejection of historical doctrine and hermeneutics and the adoption of a new moral code for conservatives. While each divorce is a singular event, the practice of same sex attraction and activity is either in accordance with church doctrine or it is not.

Scripture and the church will always discriminate among right and wrong behavior and should be very clear, and sexual activity will always have a moral dimension. The church would be greatly diminished if it were to avoid such a vital part of our humanity.

S
savannah


MrBillPro,

Thanks for your post which addressed the ignorance and arrogance of the following statement made by one who ought to consider the Writings of Menno Simons on this subject,who is the founder of the denomination known as the Mennonites. Menno would be in agreement with you MrBillPro. As would his contemporary and co-worker Bishop Dietrich Phillip. Jakob Ammann(founder of the Amish)would also agree with you as well. As would the Martyrs Mirror published in Holland in 1660 in Dutch by Thieleman J. van Braght. All Mennonites approve of this work by van Braght.
I have read such writings and I'd encourage others to do the same.

Here is the ignorant and arrogant statement:

"I expect in time most 'church' bodies will accept homosexual unions just like they do divorce and remarriage."

Thanks again for your post MrBillPro!

Thou shalt not lie with mankind,as with womankind:it is abomination. Lev. 18:22
If a man also lie with mankind,as he lieth with a woman,both of them have committed an abomination:they shall surely be put to death;their blood shall be upon them. Lev. 20:13

M
MrBillPro

Going a little deeper here, I have a question, why do some Christians feel the need to even entertain the justification of Homosexual relationships or same sex marriage? Also comparing the graphic nature of a homosexual relationship to divorce, is just off the scale. In my opinion, compromise has invaded the Church, and has been in the Church for a long time now. Thank God, there are still a few non-compromising Christians out there, that know the word, and stick to the word, and don't move an inch to try and justify things that the world says are ok. I would like to toss this question out to anyone that's wants to respond on this forum, why do you feel the need to try and justify same sex marriages or homosexual relationships, because neither are Biblical, nor God approved.

S
savannah

One poster has written, "...the larger church body of which I belong to - Mennonite...is causing a lot of grief - can't trust those who share your religious heritage anymore."

The following info on Michael Sattler is from the book Mennonites in Europe. This history book discusses the faith, teachings, and character of the early Anabaptists and Mennonites. It is a 428 page book published by Rod and Staff Publishers.

"February 24, 1527, Sattler presided over a conference of Swiss Brethren held at Schleitheim in Canton Schaffhausen. He presented to this conference a confession of faith which was approved and adopted without a dissenting voice, and was later printed under the title, "Bruderliche Vereinigung etlicher Kinder Gottes" (Brotherly Agreement of Some Children of God)...

Michael Sattler was captured by the Roman Catholic authorities in Horb, tried on May 17, 1527 at Rottenburg, and was martyred on May 21, 1527. "On the morning of that day this noble man of God, in sight of horrible torture, prayed for his judges and persecutors and admonished the people to repentance. He endured the inhuman torture stipulated in the sentence. Then his mangled body was tied to a ladder. He prayed again for his persecutors while the ladder was placed upon the stake. He had promised his friends to give them a sign from the burning stake, to show that he remained steadfast to the end, enduring it all willingly for Christ. The fire having severed the cords wherewith he was bound, he lifted up his hand for a sign to them. Soon it was noticed that his spirit had taken its flight to be with Him whom he had steadfastly confessed under the most excruciating torture, a true hero of the faith."

The Schleitheim Confession is one of the most important documents in Anabaptist history and became a sort of creed for the Anabaptists. Michael Sattler drafted the confession, along with others, at Schleitheim, Switzerland in 1527.

A lengthy account of Michael Sattler's trial and execution may also be found in Martyrs Mirror.

Here are quotes from Michael Sattler and some others on the subject of remarriage.

I furnish you all with the following, as proof that the present stand on remarriage taken by Mennonites and others of the Anabaptist persuasion, was not and is not shared by the founders of these religious sects, and therefore cannot be appealed to as their heritage in these matters.

In 1533 Michael Sattler wrote,

"He who divorces without fornication, the only reason, and remarries, commits adultery; and he who takes a divorced woman causes her to commit adultery; for Christ says, "These two are one flesh". But he who cleaves to a
harlot, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 6, sins against his own body and is one flesh with the harlot. Thus he is by this act
separated from his own flesh, in that he has attached himself to the alien flesh of the prostitute, and thus the marriage is broken; for they are no longer one flesh, since the fornicator has become one flesh with the harlot. The one who finds herself thereby divorced may now marry, whom she will, only let it be in the Lord"

In the book 'The Complete Writings of Menno Simons', Menno writes,

"These two, one husband and one wife, are one flesh and can not be separated from each other to marry again
otherwise than for adultery, as the Lord says. Matt. 5:19; Mark 10; Luke 16. This is our real position, doctrine, and practice concerning marriage, as we here confess with the holy Scriptures. By the grace of God it will ever remain the position of all pious souls, let them lie and slander as they like. We know and confess truly that it is the express ordinance, command, intent, and unchangeable plain word of Christ. We know too that the bond of undefiled, honorable matrimony is so firm and fast in the kingdom and government of Christ, that no man may leave his wife, nor a wife her husband, and marry another (understand rightly what Christ says), except it be for adultery. We acknowledge, teach, and assent to no other marriage than that which Christ and His apostles publicly and plainly taught in the New Testament, namely, of one man and one woman (Matt. 19:4), and that they may not be divorced except in case of adultery (Matt. 5:32); for the two are one flesh, but if the unbelieving one depart, a sister
or brother is not under bondage in that case. 1 Cor. 7:15"

In 1554, seven key Dutch Anabaptist leaders, including Menno Simons, Dirk Phillips, and Leonard Bouwens met
together in conference to discuss some pressing issues, and the result was the 'Wismar Articles'.

"Article IV. In the fourth place, if a believer and an unbeliever are in the marriage bond together and the unbeliever commits adultery, the marriage tie is broken. And if it be one who complains that he has fallen in sin, and desires to mend his ways, then the brethren permit the believing mate to go to the unfaithful one to admonish him, if conscience allows it in view of the state of the affair. But if he be a bold and headstrong adulterer, then the innocent party is free - with the provision, however, that she shall consult with the congregation and remarry according to circumstances and decisions in the matter, be it well understood."

Dirk Philips , a fellow bishop with Menno Simons and bulwark of the Anabaptist faith, in the Dietrich Phillip Handbook wrote,

"The Lord desired and commanded that men should do this no more (freely divorce their wives for any cause),except in case of fornication, which is the only and true reason or cause for which a man may leave or put away his wife and take another."

In the book, 'Martyrs Mirror', by Thieleman J. van Braght, written in 1660 we read, "In article 25 of a 'Confession of
Faith, according to the Holy Word of God', written about the year 1600, article 25 states that by His words Christ was;

"re-establishing marriage between one man and one woman, and inseparably and firmly binding the bond of matrimony , that they might not, on any account, separate and marry another, except in case of adultery or death."

Around the turn of the eighteenth century, the Anabaptist/Mennonite movement divided into two camps, the Amish Mennonites (a conservative renewal after Jakob Amman), and the Reist Mennonites (the more liberal existing group,named after Hans Reist). In 1779, at Essingen, Germany, the conservative Amish Mennonites convened a conference to reemphasize their doctrinal and disciplinary positions, and the Essingen Discipline was the fruit of that meeting.The very first article of this discipline reads as follows:

"Article One: Concerning the Christian Confession of Faith, just as our forefathers confessed and held to the 33
Articles Confession as it is found in Martyrs Mirror, so do we also hold to the same, together with the Word of God
and the Christian Discipline, and each one shall diligently meditate upon the same and live up to it."

The 33 Articles Confession the conference is referring to here is the very same confession mentioned in the Martyrs Mirror quoted above which states clearly and without the possibility of mistake that one "...might not, on any account, separate and marry another, except in case of adultery or death."

For at least the first 250 years of the Anabaptist/Mennonite movement, the biblical position was maintained. This same position was also expressed
in the old 'Mennonite Catechism' and the 'Shorter Catechism'.

May we all refrain from making any ignorant and arrogant statements as have been made in this thread.

S
sermonindex

"May we all refrain from making any ignorant and arrogant statements as have been made in this thread."
Savannah - this is entirely your own opinion and you can't state it as a fact.
Here is a definition of the word "arrogant":
"having or showing the insulting attitude of people who believe that they are better, smarter, or more important than other people "

Nobody has written with an "insulting attitude " plus your post has nothing to do anymore with the actual thread, you are way off topic.

Paul writes: …Philippians 2:2:make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. 3Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
And Peter writes: 1 Peter 3:8 Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.

G
ginnyrose

Savannah,

What I wrote about divorce and remarriage becoming acceptable, paving the way for homosexual unions to become acceptable, I have personally witnessed myself. I have family, immediate and extended in many branches of Mennonites. You see a lot of changes if you live long enough - been around since 1947.

What all these Mennonite writers had to say about d&r may be interesting but they are not the Holy Writ. It just high lights the weakness of relying on contemporary writers speaking authoritative to issues instead of Scritpure.

I just read on FB a post by a former pastor of a Mennonite church who was defrocked a few years ago for his disbelief in in hell. He wrote recently that he is a twin brother of Jesus Christ! Now, if you were to take his post as standard fare for Biblical Mennonites, you are wrong. We are shocked and mortified - but some praised him!!

Sick, sick, sick.

Sandra

G
ginnyrose

When I was in Bible School I took Mennonite History...while I was there back in the 1960s we were never taught what the early Anabaptist writers wrote or said on issues except for a few. There were no indepth courses offered to teach us this. I find it interesting that others outside of my religious heritage alledgedly know more then I do!

It may also surprise you that I cannot quote Menno Simons or any of the older Anabaptist writers. We were never taught to regard that older (and modern) Anabaptist writers' authority superceeded the WORD itself. They may have been appreciated that they took a stand against the errors of the Reformers and Catholics but beyond that, nothing.

Sandra

L
Lysa

by lovejt
i was just wondering.......was there ever a big uproar 'within the church' when divorces were becoming more acceptable in church? During the 70s? When did the divorce rate start to go upwards? It must've been gradual at first then suddenly went up quickly?

I searched some statistics starting at 1950, the divorce rate for first time marriages was steadily over 20% but in the late 1960's around 25% and then in the 70's doubled and has been back and forth over the 50% range ever since.

We accept people, people who are in sin and people who have sinned and people who are going to sin. The Holy Spirit is the only one who convicts of sins not the Church.

God bless,
Lisa

L
lovejt

Thanks a lot Lisa. :)

T
TMK

Lisa wrote:

"We accept people, people who are in sin and people who have sinned and people who are going to sin. The Holy Spirit is the only one who convicts of sins not the Church. "

I agree with your sentiment, but how do we square this with the apostle Paul instructing the Corinthians to expel a sexually immoral person from the church? Is a practicing homosexual who claims to be a Christian unrepentant?

I agree we must "accept people" but I think we also have to tell them what the Word clearly states.

In other words, accepting does not equal ignoring, or by silence condoning.

For a little more extreme example, what if someone came into a service guzzling out of a bottle of Jack Daniels, or smacking his wife around?

T
Theophila

Dear Savannah,
I think I can understand your passion about this matter but how do you justify calling your sister's speech, 'ignorant and arrogant'?
The Scriptures do enjoin us to 'always let our speech be seasoned with salt, so it may minister grace to the hearers'.

I could be wrong but I fail to see how ginnyrose's statement constitutes an acceptance of homosexual marriage. I interpreted her comment as what she believes may happen in her denomination, given the current state of affairs.

Please do consider apologizing to her.

Peace to all,

T
TMK

Quote: "I could be wrong but I fail to see how ginnyrose's statement constitutes an acceptance of homosexual marriage."

You are not wrong. It would take a willful misunderstanding to misinterpret her words in such a fashion. She is simply affirming what we all see with our own eyes, namely the continuing corruption of the Church.

G
ginnyrose

I did more checking...

I did find that the question of remarriage after divorce with a spouse still living was/is an issue that confronted Anabaptist leaders ever since the Reformation. The conclusions were varied - going from accepting it - depending on the situation - to outright rejection.

What is new today is the accepting of same sex unions. However, all of the churches that support it are those that have caved into accepting remarriage after divorce with a spouse living.

It seems to me the core issue is an ignorance of the Holiness of God, obedience to Him.

The first temptation thrust at Eve had at its core the purpose of driving a wedge between husband and wife by disobeying God. The devil succeeded it quite well.

God said "let us make man in our image..." This denotes unity...destroy unity and you have conflict. Everytime in all places in all situations. There is nothing that destroys unity in interpersonal relationships as distrust which is what happens in immorality.

Adulterers, homosexuals, practioners of beastality were sentenced to die under OT law. There was no sacrifice for them to atone for their sin. None. Does this not tell us something about the seriousness of this issue? In the NT Jesus forgives, but in modern times religious people celebrate sin, saying it is of little consequence because we are under grace!

Lord, have mercy! but I suspect God has turned his back on many as per Romans 1.

We live is awful times.

Sandra

M
MrBillPro

Again, Divorce and remarriage is not applicable to the same-sex marriage debate. First of all, there are arguably some circumstances where divorce and remarriage are biblically permitted. Most evangelical Christians acknowledge that sexual immorality can dissolve a marital union, and that innocent party is then free to remarry (Matt. 5:32).

R
rainydaygirl

"Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Matthew 19:7-9).

(I have always found it interesting that Jesus said, "Because of the hardness of your heart". I feel as if there is much more to those words then anyone wants to give heed too?

Also he allows divorce because of immorality so to me as I see history playing out I look at the sin of fornication as the bottom rung to the ladder. Once society accepted that as no big deal(people living together before marriage and multiple relationships) it was easy to take the next step, obscene entertainment on demand via television and internet, next step diminish marriage in the eyes of society, third step adultery common in marriage, fourth step acceptance of wide spread divorce for any reason, fifth step remarriage no matter cause acceptable(multiple remarriages accepted) sixth step break down of family, seventh step promote homosexual lifestyle, eight step push homosexual lifestyle on children as they grow, ninth step promote and push acceptance via television and internet, tenth step attack and accuse anyone who speaks God's truth about these sins, eleventh step silence anyone who speaks God's truth about these sins, twelfth step force acceptance of homosexual lifestyle as with all other sinful life choices....

all sin is deadly and leads one to hell. all sin is destructive and to my understanding no sin gets a pass. only by coming to Jesus, repenting, fleeing from sin, and living in obedience to Him is a life changed and saved.

M
MrBillPro

If my wife is running around on me having a extra marital affair, and I divorce her, I have not committed any sin. That's pretty black and white, unless the scripture has been changed by some of the denominations. There is no scripture that condones homosexuality, well not one in the word of God.

M
MrBillPro

I think this explains it pretty well:

The Bible is explicit about divorce and remarriage. In the Old Testament, Moses permitted a man to obtain a divorce on just about any grounds. "If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled.

That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance" (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). Later on, in the New Testament, when Jesus was asked about divorce, He replied that Moses gave permission to divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. He said that in the beginning it was not this way. Jesus continued, "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?" So they are no longer two but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Matthew 19:4-6).

Before God, marriage is a lifetime relationship that should never be severed by human action. In the book of Malachi, God says that He hates divorce" (Malachi 2:16). God's perfect will is the preservation of society and future generations by the preservation of marriages. God will give anyone great help in sustaining a marriage relationship or in the reconciliation of estranged marriage partners. In extreme cases, there are only two grounds for divorce and remarriage. When adultery has take place, a divorce can be obtained, because adultery has already severed the marriage relationship and divorce is a formal acknowledgment of what has already taken place.

The apostle Paul added to the teachings of Jesus what is called the "Pauline privilege." According to this concept, Paul taught that if an unbelieving spouse leaves a believer, the believer is not bound to the marriage relationship, but is free to remarry" (1 Corinthians 7:15). And some people recognize such a thing as a "constructive desertion," which would be when a husband so brutalizes his wife that it is impossible to live with him any longer; or when a wife has so harassed, or brutalized her husband that it becomes impossible for him to stay with her. When that happens, whether or not the person actually moves out, the situation is the equivalent of desertion, and divorce and remarriage are permissible.

Except for these reasons, there is no justification given in the Bible for divorce. No grounds exist for divorce on the basis of incompatibility, lack of love, or differing career goals. Frankly, it seems impossible that two born-again Christians who are dedicated to serving Jesus Christ can find any grounds for divorce.

Obviously, when a person who does not have biblical grounds for divorce remarries, he or she is technically committing adultery.

R
rainydaygirl

mr bill you are correct if your wife cheats on you then you are not in sin.

J
JB1968

Thank you Sandra for your thoughtful comments and Biblical defense of marriage. Not many are defending the Scriptural teaching of one man and one woman for life. Thank you once again. I have read many of your posts in various topics and appreciate your clear writing abilities.

P
proudpapa

Since my account is still open, and because I have Many good friends whom are being severally hurt by the type of condemnation that is being promoted on this thread, I would like to point out:

RE: ///Thank you Sandra for your thoughtful comments and Biblical defense of marriage.///

Sandra is not defending Biblical marriage as defined by Jesus!
She is using a Neo-Anabaptist interpatation to cast stones of condemnation on every single confessing Christian that has been remarried no matter the circumstance.(except for death)
We find men like David Bercot doing the same thing in his book "T.K.T.T.T.W.U.D.".
on pages 54-55 Bercot side steps Jesus definition, by argueing between the difference in a partnership and a corporation.

Friends, you are hurting many many people!


T
TMK

PP-

Where does she say this on this thread?

I certainly agree that Jesus did carve out an exception to the general rule of "no divorce" but I don't see where this is disputed on this thread.

P
proudpapa

TMK Asked : ///PP-
Where does she say this on this thread?///

((edit : add : RE: ///However, all of the churches that support it are those that have caved into accepting remarriage after divorce with a spouse living.///))

TMK Asked :
///I certainly agree that Jesus did carve out an exception to the general rule of "no divorce" but I don't see where this is disputed on this thread.///

The disagreement in this thread is over the issue : In cases of adultery, is the innocent party free to remarry ? The Neo-Anabaptist says no!
Knowing this and Understanding the sisters view and understanding the fullness of her first statement, Savannah rightly pointed out that the early (16th century) Anabaptist including Menno Simons the founder of the Mennonite heritage believed yes the the innocent party is free to remarry.

The ignorance of her statement that savanaah pointed out was because she used the word heritage, Savannah rightly pointed out that her view was not held by the founders of her heritage.
And from my personal study it seems to not have been a widly held view by Mennonites untill 1900 at which time some became stricter.

This was her response :

RE: ///What all these Mennonite writers had to say about d&r may be interesting but they are not the Holy Writ. It just high lights the weakness of relying on contemporary writers speaking authoritative to issues instead of Scritpure.///

Her response was a clear admission to that of Savannahs assumption, : that her original post included an attack on the Christians whom believe like the 16th century anabaptist that the innocent party is free to remarry.

And understanding the fullness of her first post, is why Savanna said of the statement that it was arrogant : She just condemend every single confessing Christian that has been remarried no matter the circumstance.(except for death)


S
sermonindex

Grace has room for all but grace doesn't condone all.

R
rbanks

I have not posted in a while but wow...it is hard to believe that some people can’t even make a godly distinction between natural and unnatural sex.

The scripture plainly says that God created them male and female. God created sex to only be between a male and a female. This means God approves of the male and female marriage bed? This also means that God has never, not even one time, ever approve of the (male and male) or (female and female) sexual union. This sin is an abomination period and never has been nor ever will be acceptable in God’s eyes.

The bible says woe to them that call evil good and good evil. I would have to say woe to the person who places the sin of homosexuality on the same level as one who has remarried after their former marriage was over because of sexual immorality. I will repeat that homosexual relations have never ever been nor ever will be acceptable to God.
People who cannot or will not make a distinction have a serious problem.

Any person who accepts homosexuality as being acceptable to practice before God has been greatly deceived and is endanger of losing their soul.

Blessings to all!

R
rainydaygirl

those who practice homosexuality are in sin and it is not acceptable to God that is true and I agree with that. my only question is what sins are acceptable to God? isn't sin, sin and doesn't all sin lead to death and separation from God?

i think anyone who is accepting of sin, whether it be lying, stealing, rebellious,prideful, filled with lust, fornication, abortion, murder, or homosexuality is in danger of losing their soul. God says that sin leads to death so I am pretty sure all sin is unacceptable in the eyes of the Lord.

B
brothagary

The blessings of same sex marriages by church and state is the greatest abomination in my eyes ,because of the blasphemy that the churches comit
In Christos name ,and the the satanic web that the state is
Weaving in satans name ,do what tho shalt will ,,,,
This web has many traps and snares designed by satan to snare the homosexual in to utter bondage ,through the deception that the practice is excpted by God and mans culture ,desolving the effectiveness of the of the ground ,whereby the gospel seed is effectually sowen in order to produce good fruit ......


And the freedom of speech relating to the proclamation of the gospel and the teaching of scripture ,how that will be effected and suffer ,that we will not be able to led a quite and peaceable life and expound the holy message as we have been able to on the past ,and the fact that multiple wife's and husbands will be the next of satans list ,through the supreme courts rulings and the passing of bills in parliament and satan will ,,,,,unless we have an awakening ,,,,,,, succeed in breaking down the family unit and and the idea of the sacredness of husband and wife ,to a mear expression of the lusts of the flesh , which will undermine the concence of an allready further depraved and fallen adamic Western race of people ........."........"....


Are we hopingto hold off the invevabtel flood of the enemy with debates and idol words of complaining ??????

OHHH that God would pour out the spitrt of prayer and supplication on to us ,that we might join with God in truly expressing a heart for revived...

Thats all we have left regarding a real hope that is not seen in a practical context

that God would break us with a holy burden , or I may as well die , rather then watch our western hertiige go down the shit pipes to the lowest parts of the sewares


GOD HELP us


.

M
MrBillPro

There are two verses in the book of Leviticus that refer to homosexual behavior. The first reads, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (18:22). While the second goes even further: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them" (20:13). Personally I feel God has a little bit more of an issue with homosexual behavior, than he might lying,stealing,rebellious,prideful,filled with lust, fornication, etc. but I'm just guessing here.

R
rainydaygirl

mr bill

really do you think so? i am asking sincerely because the only religion I know that teaches degrees of sin are the Roman Catholics. i always believed sin is sin. i mean the Bible tells us all sin leads to death and all sin is evil in the eyes of the Lord. Adam and Eve were cast out because they behave rebelliously to the Lord and disobeyed Him.

just my curiosity asking. i don't believe one sin is worse then another except the unpardonable sin of blasphemy the Holy Spirit. i suppose this takes us pretty for off topic though so i will close by saying i do not condone homosexual behavior nor do i believe there is any compromise when it comes to this sin. they need prayer and Jesus so they can repent and flee from their sin. then again we all need that don't we:)

B
brothagary

The principle of proportionate punishment states that the more serious sin requires more severe punishment. Consider the method of punishment for broken laws in ancient Israel. Were all the punishments equal? No! The punishment for kidnapping was death (Exodus 21:16), whereas the punishment for stealing livestock was their restoration (Exodus 22:1).

This principle dictates that the punishment must fit the crime. The Romans called it Lex Talionis (literally, "law of retaliation"). Many people know of it from the Bible's vivid description:

. . . life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:23-25)

God uses this principle in His judgments””greater and lesser punishments for greater and lesser sins. Under "an eye for an eye" in the Bible, the punishment must match, but not exceed, the damage or harm done by the perpetrator. The law placed strict limits on the amount of damages anyone could collect. It permitted no one to "get rich quick" from another's mishap. Moreover, God intended this law to be a rule of thumb for judges, not an authorization of personal vendetta or private retaliation.

by Martin G. Collins
Forerunner, "Ready Answer," November 1

R
rainydaygirl

doesn't Jesus blood cover all sins? Doesn't the price of sin equal death? i just don't see in the New Testament the idea of degree of sin. God hates all sin, all sin leads to death and separation from God.

B
brothagary

You must be closing you eyes sis the principles of greater sins and lesse sins is there..
Jesus him self said that the one who delivered him up , who was judas had the greater sin compared to pilote ,..

The fact that we have greater commands like love God ,and love you newbour means that it is a greater sin to break those commands

.

Some sins show how depraved and utterly evil our heart really is .

Like for instance you sis ,if you comited a sin today like got angry and had an argument with some one who stole you purse ,and then the next day let some idol words out of you mouth and say the third day got caught up in gossiping about you paster..
I dare say on the first day of you sin you would have ask forgiveness and so on for the second and third sins of the following days

But if you on the first day kidnaped a you child and the second day raped them and on the third day cut there little neck . That would show that you are very evil even if you prayed for forgiveness ,these greater sins show the work of satans laws writers in the heart and even that you either belong satan or Jesus ..

Some one may argue that God would forgive the pedofilic blood thristy behaviour ,mabybut the result of true forgiveness would be that that person would never be able to do that evil again , but in your case and my case we still have the ability to make the mistakes and produce the sinful expressions for instance ,like wasting to much time debating theoligal passions and not enough time on the streets witnessing and feeding the poor, or have another argument with a catholic or grumbling against Obama, yet the end result if you are a true Christian will be confession and forgiveness ..


Jesus said that those who new there godswill and refused to do it will get more beating and those who did not no gods will and yet disobead.

So I would expect that when Jesus said that judas had done the greater sin ,and pilot the lesses that in a similar way judas punishment or strips will be more then pilotes ?

Even Paul said that some signs are so bad that we can't even speak about those things done in secret.
And that some sins in the church were not even given the chance to repentance but ,remove the evil men from your midts a little leaven leavens a whole lump ,and other sins People were called to repent rather then excommunication them with out question ,..
All this really teaches that there are degrees of sin and degrees of punishment teperal and perminent.

Sister if you honest don't believe that the bible teaches that it is because you theology ,is well causing you to ignore clear words and teaching of Jesus and the apostals,,,but definitely all sin separates from God in one form or another weather it be seperation regarding the new birth and reconciliation, or spirtual blessings regarding the Christian ....

B
brothagary

This why I believe that those knew gods will , yet were in disobedience ,namely the liberal church pasters and evangelists,will have the greater sin compared to the practicing homosexual who did not no gods will ..

I think Jesus teaches that

M
MrBillPro

Great! Word Brotha....

R
rainydaygirl

i was raised a roman catholic, they teach degrees of sin. some sins require more to be forgiven for then others and honestly that is what i was taking away from both your and Mrbill posts. i could have misunderstood what you are saying because this form of communication is great for misunderstandings.for me, i don't see someone who commits murder and goes to hell will be any worse off then the person who commits adultery and goes to hell will be. both sinned, both rejected God and both will suffer death and separation from God. on the flip side of the coin if a person commits adultery repents turns to God and lives for him they are forgiven and so is the person who commits a murder. Jesus blood covers all sin except the unpardonable sin.

that is my understand from the Word. There is forgiveness for those who seek it. in the catholic church they teach some sins are worse then others, some you can get a pass on like telling "a little white lie," while others are far worse. God has a lot to say about liars but to some lying isn't so bad. for me i just think its best to see all sin as wicked and evil before a Holy and just God that way i don't deceive myself into thinking i'm not so bad.

these are just my thoughts on the matter. i should apologize for taking the thread so far off topic. thank you to both you and Mrbill for responding to me. i am not sure if in this form of communication is coming across all that well so i am going to leave this topic now.

wish you both well

B
brothagary

Definitely no hard feelings sister ,

To be honest my hate of the teachings of much of the Catholic Churches cause me to cast the baby out with the bath water ,

I think they use the terms mortal sins and venial sins I thought that was rubbish ,but after reading what Jesus said a bout judas havering the greater sin then pilet and other teachings as some being punished with less and more strips and many other sections of the bible , there is some truth in it , but blending it with penance priest confection and the other false teach many of us just become the née jerk reaction and go in the other direction, which tends to mis truth also ,..

I just want to believe what the scripture teaches in its full biblical context, with a clear concence ,I'm sure you want that too ,so God bless you on you bible study's

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 39 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate