Christian Manifesto for Biblical War

Brian Mcnamee said:

“The chief danger that confronts the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration, politics without God, heaven without hell.”

Click to expand...

Brian Mcnamee said:

Your distinction is amiss as Lavey was trying to normalize what he called Christian repression. The fact that you can side with same sex marriage as legitimate shows that you have accepted his philosphy even if you make a distinction between the real carnal side of it. Romans one is clear.

Click to expand...

Berl said:

Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.

Click to expand...

awitch said:

You mean all government authorities or just the US?

Click to expand...

Brian Mcnamee said:

I can love a sinner in any sin and pray for them to come to the LORD and share the hope of the gospel. We need to follow God's standards without compromise. If you were dealing with the subject of say alcoholism you would not wind that topic through all the maze you set up for this topic you would assemble the relevant verses on the subject and reach a conclusion from there. Your conclusion was that they need help to stop doing what is condemned in the scriptures. We love them by holding them accountable and getting them to quit their sin. This is the approach for all sin that should be taken.

Click to expand...

Brian Mcnamee said:

I have read the entire document and am grieved for having read it.

Click to expand...

This is certainly how one gets led into every wind of doctrine by following a trail of logic that makes some true statements and tries to tie them to prove a false conclusion.

Click to expand...

On this issue you do not need to run it through the maze of other scriptures that have nothing to do with the subject of human sexuality so that you can rationalize your contradictory conclusion. The conclusions are pure compromise.

Click to expand...

I can love a sinner in any sin and pray for them to come to the LORD and share the hope of the gospel. We need to follow God's standards without compromise.

Click to expand...

FireDragon76 said:

Well, like I said, our social statements are persuasive, not coercive. You don't have to be persuaded by them, but they are a general guideline to how our denomination approaches the issue. The document tried to reach a consensus, which in retrospect was impossible to do as some folks had intentions of leaving our denomination unless they could control the conversation. My pastor lost many colleagues in 2009 because they could not abide with the bound conscience of others.

BTW, our denomination has had gay pastors for decades prior to 2009, this was not something new that our church just made up and did not come out of left field. Congregations simply called extraordinary ministers who were ordained outside the usual denominational process.



Lutherans aren't so rationalistic, we accept that life has paradoxes. This makes us sound premodern or postmodern, depending on your perspective.



But isn't everything in this life? That's why our ultimate hope is in the world to come, not this world of sin. We do not claim to be a perfect church, and we ourselves reject perfectionism, but we do claim to have a realistic approach to dealing with ethical dilemmas.



Your message is week on real good news. It sounds an awful lot like legalism.

God is love. And love sometimes sets aside absolute standards in the name of dealing with another in a loving manner.

Trying to uproot my faith with biblicism simply won't work. I came to accept Lutheranism because it is an historic, confessional expression of the catholic faith that can be lived out by real people. Nonconfessional Christianity never has to measure up to that bar, since their ecclessiology is so low, the Church can be whatever you make it out to be. And the biblicist approach itself renders the Bible incoherent. In my religious tradition, of course the Bible is the norm for our faith, but it is not interpreted in isolation by the individual, it is understood communally, relying upon the best humanistic tools to do so.

Click to expand...

FireDragon76 said:

Well, like I said, our social statements are persuasive, not coercive. You don't have to be persuaded by them, but they are a general guideline to how our denomination approaches the issue. The document tried to reach a consensus, which in retrospect was impossible to do as some folks had intentions of leaving our denomination unless they could control the conversation. My pastor lost many colleagues in 2009 because they could not abide with the bound conscience of others.

BTW, our denomination has had gay pastors for decades prior to 2009, this was not something new that our church just made up and did not come out of left field. Congregations simply called extraordinary ministers who were ordained outside the usual denominational process.



Lutherans aren't so rationalistic, we accept that life has paradoxes. This makes us sound premodern or postmodern, depending on your perspective.



But isn't everything in this life? That's why our ultimate hope is in the world to come, not this world of sin. We do not claim to be a perfect church, and we ourselves reject perfectionism, but we do claim to have a realistic approach to dealing with ethical dilemmas.



Your message is week on real good news. It sounds an awful lot like legalism.

God is love. And love sometimes sets aside absolute standards in the name of dealing with another in a loving manner.

Trying to uproot my faith with biblicism simply won't work. I came to accept Lutheranism because it is an historic, confessional expression of the catholic faith that can be lived out by real people. Nonconfessional Christianity never has to measure up to that bar, since their ecclessiology is so low, the Church can be whatever you make it out to be. And the biblicist approach itself renders the Bible incoherent. In my religious tradition, of course the Bible is the norm for our faith, but it is not interpreted in isolation by the individual, it is understood communally, relying upon the best humanistic tools to do so.

Click to expand...

Brian Mcnamee said:

I once found some antique masonic high priest vestments with evil looking hand embroidered goat on one and a bull on the other. This prompted a investigation into the masons. After a few days of research it was concluded tha

7 Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? 8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[fn] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

In our movies we used to have a standard of 0 tolerance for a single curse word a single nude seen or sexual passion we had 0 graphic gore and always portrayed the good guy as good and had no anti hero's and would not show the methods of a crime of the methods of drug use and did not show adultery or fornication in a positive manner. The end of the romance was the guy married the girl. This is what the Hayes code specifically talks about and it says in it that they were wanting to keep society from embracing these evils and it even used the word sin in the documents as what it was trying to keep out of the culture. We had a majority in the USA living within the Judea Christian ethic and we had a standard that brought about blessing and prosperity to this nation. This standard was taken down for freedom of expression and we now live in a world that those from that generation would not recognize. This is moral decline on every front. Are we better for having vulgar language and sexual activity graphically shown often between characters who have just recently met? We see a drug epidemic and kids running to gangs and they are experimenting with sex at earlier ages and having multiple partners as well as same sex partners because this is the standard that is set in the culture. The scriptures in some issues leave it to a matter of conscience like Sabbath worship and all but on this issue I do not agree and neither does science. In your document you even grant this conscience to determine what gender you are. There is a tee shirt that says there are more than two genders and it is only available in S<M>L XL in mens and womens sizes. If you clone someone you will get another person born with the same sex as they were assigned at birth. This is what Romans 1 talks about being given over to a depraved mind. The opening verses I posted show that the kingdom has those who were these things and now are not and are seeking to be sanctified.
Your arguments are exactly like those of a high ranking Mason I shared with one day who went long on a winding argument trying to justify only the elite and enlightened should be making the decisions. He rewound middle east history trying to prove the understanding the issues and history gave reason to his ideas on solutions. This man was very high up 32 degree and a leader. I answered him that he did not back up the history far enough to when lucifer brought sin and death into the world and apart from that starting point all his rational was useless. He by the way admitted and defended Lucifer as being the light bearer and cursed Jesus Christ at this point all the while his wife chimed in this man is right that group Masons is of the devil... Your arguments wind much like his. The 1st step of Christianity is the highest step and there is no higher knowledge that Jesus is the son of God and can set us free from the laws of sin and death. You say I sound legalistic but there are laws of sin and death and the gospel is repentance for the forgiveness of sins is salvation by faith. REv 22 notes who is excluded from the kingdom 4 Blessed are those who do His commandments,[fn] that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But[fn] outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

this sums up 3 times previous in Rev that the judgement from God was attempting to send the message they needed to repent.
And they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries[fn] or their sexual immorality or their thefts

And men were scorched with great heat, and they blasphemed the name of God who has power over these plagues; and they did not repent and give Him glory.

They blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and did not repent of their deeds.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. yes there is an element of legalism is the gospel. 9 For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; 11 strengthened with all might, according to His glorious power, for all patience and longsuffering with joy; 12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood,[fn] the forgiveness of sins. If you are delivered from darkness we need to identify what is darkness and you have left that to personal conscience in contradiction to what the word says on these issues. I probably wont convince you and understand you think you are the most loving and understanding and I am judgmental.

Click to expand...

Brian Mcnamee said:

I can love a sinner in any sin and pray for them to come to the LORD and share the hope of the gospel. We need to follow God's standards without compromise. If you were dealing with the subject of say alcoholism you would not wind that topic through all the maze you set up for this topic you would assemble the relevant verses on the subject and reach a conclusion from there. Your conclusion was that they need help to stop doing what is condemned in the scriptures. We love them by holding them accountable and getting them to quit their sin. This is the approach for all sin that should be taken.

Click to expand...

dlamberth said:

I don't see that as loving the sinner at all. It always strikes me as really shallow when I hear that comment about loving the sinner in the way you worded it. My youngest son had a heron addiction. It was breaking our hearts, we love him dearly. We worked hard to get him into rehab and worked constantly with him afterwards to stay clean. It cost us money, time and a lot of compassionate Love, understanding and patience. The Holy Scripture that helped the most Nature and our getting him back out into it. Your approach is not based on Love. It's based on something else all together and than call it love.

Click to expand...

jayem said:

In a perverse way, there is a certain logic to it, if you're a staunch, 5 point Calvinist (so called "TULIP" Calvinism.) The "T" stands for total depravity. The belief is that man is totally depraved due to original sin. He is so lost in sin that he is unable to choose faith in Jesus by his own will. Anyone who does accept Jesus must have been selected by God, and was granted faith and salvation by God's grace. And extending the total depravity angle means that any laws created by sinful, reprobate men are also depraved. The only perfect law is what God gave to Moses. So a righteous and godly society must only follow biblical law. No exceptions allowed. Calvinist thinking is pretty dark. Which I'm sure is why it's never been widely accepted. And this is Calvinism on steroids.

Click to expand...

Albion said:

Yipes. Calvinists were among the most determined to control social and public goings-on and NOT just keep religious and secular activities apart.

Click to expand...

Albion said:

Yipes. Calvinists were among the most determined to control social and public goings-on and NOT just keep religious and secular activities apart.

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

I'm not a Calvinist, but actually Calvinism logically goes to just the opposite.

Calvinists acknowledge up front that it's impossible to tell by sight who is Elect and it's also impossible to coerce Election. The reasoning was that if the real selection was made by God, the men must refrain from making that selection "for" Him through any coercion or social advantage...so the church must allow those chips to fall where they may.

The original Calvinist position in America was that the state must govern in its own secular space and the church must govern its own religious space. That's also why groups like the Amish (staunch Calvinists) practice social separation from the state and also why they have that custom of letting young people leave the group. If they're Elect, they'll come back. If not...oh, well.

The very concept of "wall of separation between church and state" in America has its roots in radical Calvinism to that end. The Calvinists were the "Separatists." The first American colony based on absolute religious freedom--explicitly stated even at the time for Muslims and atheists--was founded by a radical Calvinist.

Click to expand...

jayem said:

The point I wanted to make was simply that if the idea of man's total, inherent unrighteousness is extended (possibly beyond the context for which it was intended) it's logical to conclude that any man-made laws, or governments are also unrighteous.

Click to expand...