My denomination is in error!

[DD2008]

I learned about this from the Baptist site.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/597/story/538257.html This is the damning article.

I have to talk to my wife tonight and send an email to the pastors that I won't be returning. I'm a bit nervous. I don't know of any other Churches around here that are Reformed. I just found this one a couple months back. This is disturbing. I'm changing my icon to Calvinist until I figure this out.

I follow the Lord, not any denomination.

This is unfortunate. We liked that Church. I'm afraid to move. We were just getting settled. I hope that the Spirit guides us. I feel like I'm in a life raft out on an unknown ocean praying for land.

 

[AndOne]

DD - You'll be in my prayers. Sorry to hear this about the PCUSA and the predicament you're in. Keep in mind that not all Presbyterian Churches fall under the perview of the PCUSA. You have the PCA that has stayed true to the scripture and the Westminster Standards and there are some others out there as well. Since I'm not Presbyterian myself I'll pipe down but I'm sure you'll get some good direction from some of the good ones here....

 

[AndOne]

How do you know he is being intolerant? Seems like a pretty brash and judgemental statement to me. So much for tolerance of anything....

 

[DD2008]

DD - You'll be in my prayers. Sorry to hear this about the PCUSA and the predicament you're in. Keep in mind that not all Presbyterian Churches fall under the perview of the PCUSA. You have the PCA that has stayed true to the scripture and the Westminster Standards and there are some others out there as well. Since I'm not Presbyterian myself I'll pipe down but I'm sure you'll get some good direction from some of the good ones here....

I talked to my wife and after a long conversation she and I decided that I have to tell the Pastor at the PC-USA church that we're leaving and then we'll go looking. I printed out this page from scripture catholic (don't worry they're on the same side on this issue) http://www.scripturecatholic.com/homosexuality.html and we looked up the verses in the ESV and talked about them and decided it is best to follow God's word than to try to make excuses for things.

We are going to find a Bible believing Church. My wife is reluctant but understanding. Her step father is an ELCA minister and is pretty liberal. He will be pretty upset with me. We have clashed a few times over bible interpretation. He has a PHD so he thinks that he is an authority and that his historical critical hermenuetic rules all. He denies the virgin birth and the inerrancy of scripture and that there is a hell. He also sees nothing wrong with openly gay individuals in the pulpit. So, if you guys would pray I'd appreciate it. I'm going to have a tough time when they find out we are finding a bible believing Church. My mother in law already told my wife that she shouldn't listen to me and should ditch her ESV for The Message. So, I'm in real trouble with the in-laws on this one.


I found a PCA Church not too far from here that we are going to try this Sunday. What denomination are you? What are good reformed denominations.

I would like to apologise to everyone I debated for the PCUSA against. You guys were right. I should have shut my prideful arrogant trap and listened to better informed voices before I joined.

 

[DD2008]

I believe that the bible is the true word of God. I am going to do my best to follow it in a childlike manner because I believe in Christ and I want to follow him in a childlike manner. I believe that's what he wants me to do.

The Father knows best. He gave us the bible for a reason.

You know what? I'm convicted to leave the Democratic party as well. I'm going back to being independant. I'll only vote for the things I believe will help the cause of Christ.

I Repent.

 

[hedrick]

It may not change your decision, but I'd like to make sure you understand the background of that article. In the PCUSA changes in the constitution need to be approved by a majority of presbyteries. The article was describing the vote in one of 173 presbyteries, and one which seems to be fairly far from where you are located.

In my opinion it is very unlikely that a majority of presbyteries will approve the change. The last vote on this issue got only 27%. This one looks like it's going to get more, but almost certainly still a minority.

In a situation like this, people differ in how to react. Do you care about the views of the local church to which you belong? your presbytery? The national church? How much does it bother you that other congregations and other presbyteries are more liberal? You may well want to belong to a denomination that enforces a uniformly conservative view. In that case you don't want to be part of the PCUSA. But there are PCUSA congregations even near me (New Jersey, which is generally a liberal area) in which you would certainly be comfortable.

 

[DD2008]

It may not change your decision, but I'd like to make sure you understand the background of that article. In the PCUSA changes in the constitution need to be approved by a majority of presbyteries. The article was describing the vote in one of 173 presbyteries, and one which seems to be fairly far from where you are located.

In my opinion it is very unlikely that a majority of presbyteries will approve the change. The last vote on this issue got only 27%. This one looks like it's going to get more, but almost certainly still a minority.

In a situation like this, people differ in how to react. Do you care about the views of the local church to which you belong? your presbytery? The national church? How much does it bother you that other congregations and other presbyteries are more liberal? You may well want to belong to a denomination that enforces a uniformly conservative view. In that case you don't want to be part of the PCUSA. But there are PCUSA congregations even near me (New Jersey, which is generally a liberal area) in which you would certainly be comfortable.

I think if an entire presbytery would vote a yes on this it proves that there is a sickness in that denomination. I don't want to support it. I made a mistake by joining it. I should have listened to others first and looked around.

I know the measure may not pass on the national level. But it's the principle that this is a serious issue that many presbyteries in this denomination have voted for! To me a vote for this kind of thing shows a complete ignorance of Christ.

I can't support them. I'm moving on. My family don't need this kind of trouble in a church.

 

[DeaconDean]

It may not change your decision, but I'd like to make sure you understand the background of that article. In the PCUSA changes in the constitution need to be approved by a majority of presbyteries. The article was describing the vote in one of 173 presbyteries, and one which seems to be fairly far from where you are located.

In my opinion it is very unlikely that a majority of presbyteries will approve the change. The last vote on this issue got only 27%. This one looks like it's going to get more, but almost certainly still a minority.

In a situation like this, people differ in how to react. Do you care about the views of the local church to which you belong? your presbytery? The national church? How much does it bother you that other congregations and other presbyteries are more liberal? You may well want to belong to a denomination that enforces a uniformly conservative view. In that case you don't want to be part of the PCUSA. But there are PCUSA congregations even near me (New Jersey, which is generally a liberal area) in which you would certainly be comfortable.

Let me just interject here for a moment.

This decision that took place does not affect the state-wide, or natioin-wide association. This vote is only within the PCUSA churches that are a part of the PCUSA association in and around Mecklenburg County, in North Carolina.

But this also should not come as any supprise to anybody. starting back in 1978, the PCUSA has been moving in this direction.

“…Homosexuality is not God's wish for humanity…On the basis of our under-standing that the practice of homosexuality is sin, we are concerned that homosexual believers and the observing world should not be left in doubt about the church's mind on this issue during any further period of study.”​

(Minutes of the 190th General Assembly [1978], United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., pp. 261-62)​

In 1980, 2 years later they said:

‘Homosexuality presents a particular problem for the church. It seems to be contrary to the teaching of scripture.’”

(Minutes of the 120th General Assembly [1980], Presbyterian Church in the United States, p. 213)​

11 years later, they slipped this in:

The church should “re-evaluate its definition of sin to reflect the changing mores of society.” They also went on to say that the church should sound “a call for widening the circle of the faithful—not with children, but with non-reproductive gays, lesbians, and heterosexual singles who practice ‘safe sex.’ We feel that marriage is not what legitimates sexual gratification.” ​

(Roll Over John Calvin, Time Magazine, 5-6-91, p. 59)
​

Does anybody but me see how gradual this brought this in?​

In 1978, homosexuality was a sin.​

In 1981, homosexuality "seemed" contrary to scriptures.​

And in 1991, we need to re-evaluate and "re-define" just what is, and what isn't a sin.​

Adolph Hitler was absolutely correct in his measures to turn the people of the 1930's Germany over to Nazism. You don't change them overnight. But broadcast the same message day and night, and gradually change the messages, and you can get the people to believe anything.​

If the PC-USA teach it, and allow it, it is wrong. Period.​

If the SBC, were to vote for this sort of thing, I'd leave them in a heart-beat. And not think twice, or bat an eye, or lose any sleep over it.​

God Bless​

Till all are one.​

 

[DD2008]

Let me just interject here for a moment.

This decision that took place does not affect the state-wide, or natioin-wide association. This vote is only within the PCUSA churches that are a part of the PCUSA association in and around Mecklenburg County, in North Carolina.

But this also should not come as any supprise to anybody. starting back in 1978, the PCUSA has been moving in this direction.

(Minutes of the 190th General Assembly [1978], United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., pp. 261-62)​

In 1980, 2 years later they said:

(Minutes of the 120th General Assembly [1980], Presbyterian Church in the United States, p. 213)​

11 years later, they slipped this in:

(Roll Over John Calvin, Time Magazine, 5-6-91, p. 59)​

Does anybody but me see how gradual this brought this in?​

In 1978, homosexuality was a sin.​

In 1981, homosexuality "seemed" contrary to scriptures.​

And in 1991, we need to re-evaluate and "re-define" just what is, and what isn't a sin.​

Adolph Hitler was absolutely correct in his measures to turn the people of the 1930's Germany over to Nazism. You don't change them overnight. But broadcast the same message day and night, and gradually change the messages, and you can get the people to believe anything.​

If the PC-USA teach it, and allow it, it is wrong. Period.​

If the SBC, were to vote for this sort of thing, I'd leave them in a heart-beat. And not think twice, or bat an eye, or lose any sleep over it.​

God Bless​

Till all are one.​

Thanks for pointing this out. That is very illuminating. It's almost like a disease that spread throughout the body and took over.

For Christians, especially Christians in an position of authority to vote for something like this is a sure sign that there is something terribly wrong with their understanding of Christ.

I feel very comforted now in the thought that my family and I are given the grace to leave this situation before we supported it further.

 

[DeaconDean]

Thanks for pointing this out. That is very illuminating. It's almost like a disease that spread throughout the body and took over.

For Christians, especially Christians in an position of authority to vote for something like this is a sure sign that there is something terribly wrong with their understanding of Christ.

I feel very comforted now in the thought that my family and I are given the grace to leave this situation before we supported it further.

I have a very simple philosophy on this.

In Mal.3:6 we read:

"For I am the LORD, I change not;"

In James, we read:

"with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." -Jas. 1:17 (KJV)

And we know for a certainty, that the Bible is the literally "God-breathed" (qeopneustoV-theh-op'-nyoo-stos) word. (cf 2 Tim. 3:16)

If homosexuality was a sin in Moses' day. If homosexuality was a sin in Paul's day, why is not a sin in our day?

Did God or His word change?

Or have we changed it for Him?

The heart of liberism is liberty. Taking liberties with God's word.

a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity

Merriam-Webster's On-line Dictionary.

Think on that.

Backsliding is not something that happens all of a sudden. It is a gradual process till one day you wake up and your eyeball deep in sin.

Which should serve to show us that Satan is not dead. He is alive and doing well in 2009.

Forgive my posting here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Man lying with man as with women, what is that?

God calls it an abomination.

The Apostle Paul said those who practice this are engaged in "vile affections" and cannot "retain God in their knowledge" and would be given up to a reprobate mind.

Are these the kind of people we want leading our church?

"I trow not" -Lk. 17:9

The word "trinity" wasn't used until the 3rd century and isn't found anywhere in scriptres either, does that mean it isn't true either?

Your argument dosen't hold water.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Thanks for pointing this out. That is very illuminating. It's almost like a disease that spread throughout the body and took over.

For Christians, especially Christians in an position of authority to vote for something like this is a sure sign that there is something terribly wrong with their understanding of Christ.

I feel very comforted now in the thought that my family and I are given the grace to leave this situation before we supported it further.

AS I said either here or in the thread in the Baptist area, I am 100% opposed to "liberalism."

And I am not excluding the Baptists in this neither.

Now whether you like him or not, sometimes, even David Cloud gets it right.

I am only including this as his quote of a seminary survey shows the fruits of "liberalism" within the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in the 1970's.

And before I quote this, I just want to say that the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is them oldest Southern Baptist Seminary there is.

LIBERALISM SPREAD THROUGH THE SBC VIA THE INFLUENCE OF LIBERAL SCHOOLS

"Even by the admission of the present conservative SBC leadership, Southern Baptist seminaries were shot through and through with theological liberalism when the "conservative renaissance" began in the late 1970s. This has been carefully documented in many books, including S.B.C. House on the Sand? by Dr. David O. Beale (Bob Jones University, 1985). Year after year, decade after decade, thousands of Southern Baptist pastors and missionaries were trained at the feet of men who denied that the Bible is the perfect, infallible Word of God and who denied or questioned other cardinal doctrines of the New Testament faith.

To illustrate the condition of the Southern Baptist schools in the 1970s, consider a survey that was taken in 1976 by a Master of Theology student at the Southern Theological Seminary, the oldest and most prominent of SBC seminaries. Three faculty members--G. Willis Bennett, E. Glenn Hinson, and Henlee Barnette--signed that they had read and approved the thesis containing this survey ("Liberalism Brews within the Southern Baptist Convention," William A. Powell, Sr., Fundamentalist Journal, February, 1984, p. 21). One statement was -- "Jesus was born of a virgin: completely true." Of the first-year students, 96% said they agreed with this statement. Of final-year seminary students, only 66% agreed. Thus, after three years of training in this SBC school, 30% of the students had learned to question the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. It gets worse, though. At the Th.M. level, only 33% agreed that Jesus was born of a virgin, and only 32% of Ph.D. candidates agreed. Thus almost a full 70% of advanced Southern Seminary students in the 1970s questioned the virgin birth. When asked if they believed Jesus literally walked on water, 96% of first-year students believed this, while only 59% of fourth year students believed it, and only 44% of Th.M. and 22% of Ph.D. students believed it. When asked if they had any doubts that Jesus Christ is the Divine Son of God, 100% of first-year students said they had no doubts, while only 87% of fourth-year students, 63% of Th.M. candidates and 63% of Ph.D. candidates had no doubts. This means that almost 40% of the graduate-level students at this SBC school questioned the Deity of Jesus Christ. In fact, it is probable that a much higher percentage questioned the true deity of Christ, since the term "divine Son of God" is commonly reinterpreted by Modernists to mean something other than the fact that Jesus Christ is Almighty God. Further, roughly 30% of the fourth-year students and 35% of Th.M. and Ph.D. candidates said they had doubts even about the existence of God.

Southern Baptist supporters are quick to reply that since the conservatives have taken control of Southern Seminary the teachers are required to profess commitment to biblical inerrancy. This is true, but my reply is as follows: Where are those thousands of men and women today who were trained at the feet of Modernists? The answer is that they are pastors and deacons and teachers in Southern Baptist churches and they are Southern Baptist missionaries. When did they give up the liberal influence with which they were infected during seminary training? The fact is that most of them are still infected. These generations of liberal-trained graduates have permeated the Convention with theological confusion and weakness. According to a survey that was done in 1995, a full 11% of Southern Baptists questioned said, "The Bible is the inspired word of God, but it may contain historical and scientific errors" (Atlanta Journal, June 18, 1995). That reply represents the fruit of liberalism that is gradually permeating the Convention at the grass roots level, in spite of the conservative renaissance at the national level.

Furthermore, though the national seminaries have been turned back somewhat from theological modernism, nothing has changed at the state and local level of the convention. There are six national seminaries with a total enrollment of roughly 12,700. These have been turned in a more conservative direction during the last 15 years. On the other hand, there are 54 Southern Baptist colleges and universities that are [for the most part] openly and unquestioningly modernistic, with a total enrollment of roughly 113,500 students (R.L. Hymers, Jr., Battle for the Bible in the 21st Century, pp. vii-ix, citing Bill Sumners, Director and Archivist, Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives). Thus, even today, after 30 years of conservative leadership at the national level, 90% of the students in Southern Baptist-supported institutions are being trained by modernists."

David Cloud, Liberalism in the Southern Baptist Convention

There is the "voice of liberism."

Three cheers for "liberism."

If this is what it means to be "liberal," I want no part of it. If being "liberal" means turning away from what has been taught and believed since the founding of this country, then I want no part of it.

My two cents worth.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[ReformedChapin]

You can still be a part of the OPC and PCA if you find them in your area. Not all of presbyterianism when down the drain don't ya know...

 

[DeaconDean]

As I said before:

The heart of liberism is liberty. Taking liberties with God's word.

Liberalism teaches that we must re-interpret the scriptures in light of cultural circumstances, and date. What may have been applicable in Paul's day, isn't applicable in todays society.

You know, it is funny that in or around 1400 BC, in the book of Leviticus, we see:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

The Apostle Paul said in AD 64:

"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" -Rom. 1:24-28 (KJV)

In the Greek we read:

"kai kaqwV ouk edokimasan ton qeon ecein en epignwsei, paredwken autouV o qeoV eiV adokimon noun, poiein ta mh kaqhkonta," -Rom. 1:28 (GNT)

Notice this phrase: "ta mh kaqhkonta"

The Greek word used here in the KJV is "convenient."

The Greek word is: "kaqhkw" (Strongs Number 2520).

Here I quote from: The New Analytical Greek Lexicon":

"kaqhkw" to reach, extend to; kaqhkei, impersonal, it is fitting, meet, Acts 22:22; to kaqhkon, what is fit, right, duty; ta mh kaqhkonta, by litotes for what is abominable or destestable, Rom. 1:28

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, kaqhkw, p. 214

Paul here says that men lying with men, and women lying with women are doing things that are an abomination, or detestable. Just like what God said in Lev. 18:22!

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are an abomination or which are destestable" {emphasis mine}

Paul said a little further on in Romans:

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." -Rom. 12:2 (KJV)

But yet, the church, and some Christians are being conformed to the world in being made to accept homosexuals as "normal."

We are supposed to conform the world to the church, but instead, the reverse is happening. The church is being conformed to the world.

Here are your fruits of Liberalism.

God said homosexual activity was an abomination in 1400 BC, Paul said the same thing in AD 64, and up until the late 1950's, this was a sin, but yet, in 2009, this is an acceptable behavior.

Stamp out Liberalism, pick up your bible and read it! Study it! Follow it!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Anoetos]

"Research" is necessary on this point only if you don't like the plain meaning of the text. You'll need to do a lot of "research" to get it to where you want it to be.

Like the PC-USA in 1991 (thanks Dean), you'll need to do some heavy lifting to bring the Bible into consonance with "the changing mores of society". And, after all, isn't that what this is about? Trying to make friends with exactly that entity from which Jesus promised us only hatred?

But the Bible is perfectly clear.

The "arguments" we hear from "Gay Christians" and those who want "tolerance" for gays are just revisions of the pertinent texts.

We could trot out all the verses if you like, but the context of "thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman" is overarching. The original experience may have been of "temple prostitution" but it was the act of sodomy which the Lord condemned. Why would God single out this particular phenomenon of pagan worship for opprobrium if His intention is merely to outlaw a particular cultus? If homosexuality and the acts that flow from it are morally neutral, why should God have an issue with this at all? If His only intention is to declare illicit extra-marital fornication of every variety, leaving permissible same sex "marriage", why is the standard He uses "as with a woman"?

The problems for the "tolerants" are manifold. They can be quite comfy in their "open-mindedness" patting themselves on the back that they are more enlightened and that they have "done their research" unlike the benighted ones who just take the Bible as it stands, but the fact remains that Scripture is consistent in its condemnation of homosexuality from cover to cover and not just as an expression of paganism or, God help us, "inhospitality" but as a sinful expression of our fallenness and a perversion of the created order.

 

[DeaconDean]

Be not conformed to this world
Romans 12:1-2
A Sermon by DeaconDean​

Introduction: Athanasius, early bishop of Alexandria, stoutly opposed the teachings of Arius, who declared that Christ was not the eternal Son of God, but a subordinate being. Hounded through five exiles, he was summoned before emperor Theodosius, who demanded he cease his opposition to Arius. The emperor reproved him asked; “Do you not realize that all the world is against you?” Athanasius quickly answered; “Then I am against all the world.”

The story is brief but it shows the need not to be conformed to this world. The Apostle Paul urged the Corinthians to “come out, be ye separate”. (2 Cor. 6:17) A call to not be conformed to this world. Having said that, you might ask, “Why conform in some ways?” There are different reasons not to and we will look at a few of these. Let us start by looking at what God’s word says.

Scripture Reading: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” –Rom. 12:1-2

Pastors Prayer: Heavenly Father, take this short little message and use to for the building up of your kingdom. And may all glory and honor be yours. For we ask this in Jesus' name. Amen.

Division 1 Statement: Understanding Conformity

Explanation: Conform means correspond to or be like (a pattern), comply with (a law, rules, or customs), be obedient.

Illustration: Queen Victoria, rebelled as a child, ultimately, good was withheld from her, proved to be too rowdy, and was told about the throne she would inherit someday, she conformed to their expectations.

Argumentation: 1 Sam. 8:5, Israel, seeing other nations said to God, “We want a king! We want to be like the other nations!” So gave them what they asked for. And what did they get? 1&2 Kings, and 1&2 Chronicles show these results. But what are the rewards for conforming to God’s plans?

“Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:” –Isa. 1:16-19 (KJV)

Transition: If you shouldn’t conform to the world, what about our society? Lets examine:

Division 2 Statement: Conformity in our Society.

Explanation: Today there is tremendous pressure to conform to societies so call standards. But the pressure to conform is exerted and felt mostly by our pre-teens and teenagers.

Illustration: E.M. Griffin in his book “The Mindchangers” describes an experiment done by Solomon Asch with groups of 12 people. They were brought into a room where four lines of unequal length were displayed. They had to decide which two were the same length and publicly vote for their choice. Person after person (eleven in all) voted for the wrong line-because they had been told ahead of time to vote that way. The one individual in the dark couldn’t imagine how in the world these seemingly normal people could all choose the wrong line. When it was his turn to vote, he had to decide, “Do I go with what I know my senses are telling me, or do I go with the crowd?” The result: one third of those tested caved in to peer pressure and changed their vote to agree with their peers.

Argumentation: People conformed to others back in Elijah’s day:

“And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.” –1 kings 18:21

Jesus’ prediction of the conformity in the end days:

“And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.” –Lk. 17:23

Peter’s warning of the ways people will follow:

“And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” –2 Pet. 2:2

Application: Paul’s exhortation to the Thessalonians:

“See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.” -1 Thes. 5:15

And:

“For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;.. Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.” –2 Thes. 3:7,9

How about Peter’s exhortation?

“For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:” –1 Pet. 2:21

Transition: Well, enough about that, but what about another question this brings up? What could it hurt?

Division 3 Statement: The Danger of Conformity.

Explanation: In spite of what we may think, there is a danger to conformity, its called “Compromise”!

Illustration: F.B. Meyer said: “The place from we can exert the strongest influence for good is not from within, but from without. Lot lost all influence of his life in Sodom; but Abraham from the heights of Mamre, was able to exert a mighty influence on its history.”

Argumentation: The remnant that returned from captivity, conformed to the customs and manners of the inhabitants.

“Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.” –Ezra 9:1

With the results seen in verse 2:

“For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.”

This can also be seen in Christian businessmen who eventually go to meetings where alcohol is served. At first he is ridiculed, then he caves in to pressure. Subsequent conformities become easier and easier.

Application: 1 Thes. 5:22:

“Abstain from all appearance of evil.”

This can also be seen in Paul, in refusing to eat that which had been offered to idols (1 Cor. 8:13) And in supporting himself. (cf. 1 Cor 9: 7-23) Conformity to this world can separate us from God (cf. 1 Jn. 2:15-17)
1.Succumbing to the lust of the flesh. (immorality)
2.Succumbing to the lust of the eyes. (materialism)
3.Yielding to the pride of life. (arrogance)

Transition: Now do you understand why there is grave danger in conforming to this world? But how do we deal with it?

Division 4 Statement: Be a transformer, not a conformist.

Explanation: You must change the things around you to be what is “holy, acceptable” (cf. Rom 12:2). If a picture on a wall is hanging crooked, do you bend the wall to fit the picture?

Illustration: On a wall near the entrance to the Alamo in San Antonio, Texas is a portrait with the following inscription: “James Butler Bonham – no picture of him exists. This is a portrait of his nephew, Mayor James Bonham, deceased, who greatly resembled his uncle. It is placed here by the family that the people may know the appearance of the man who died for freedom.” No literal portrait of Jesus exists either. But the likeness of the Son who makes us free can be seen in the lives of His true followers.

Argumentation: Paul calls for “a renewing of the mind”. A new “mind set.” Matthew Henry says: “see to it that there is a saving change wrought in you and that it be carried on.”

John Gill calls the believer to “progress and carrying on of the work of renovation, the renewing of them day by day in the spirit of their minds.”

“For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.” –2 Cor. 4:16

Application: Eph. 4:22-24:

“That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. ”

Put off the former things. (the old man)
Renew your mind. (mind the things of God)
Put on the new mind as stated in Hosea 5:4:

“frame their doings to turn”

Transition: Being a transformist and not a conformist marks the difference between true Christians and shallow imitators. But one more step is needed…

Division 5 Statement: Be a leader, not a follower.


Explanation: It takes a person of great courage to step out of line and pledge to be different. No longer going with the current, but going counter-current.

Illustration: Martin Luther refused to follow the doctrines that the Roman Catholic church was teaching, when he nailed his 95 thesis to the door of the castle church in Wittenberg, Germany, he sparked one of the greatest reformations since Jesus’ time. Without his courage to step out of line and be a leader rather than a follower, we would not have great Reformers such as John Calvin, Carl Zwingly, and John Wycliff.

Argumentation: A transformist is a leader:

Who proves to others what is good, acceptable, and perfect. (cf. vs. 2) Refusing to go with the crowd.

Presents their bodies as a “living sacrifice”.

When people are having adulterous affairs, these people have the courage to say this is wrong and a sin to God and my wife and family.

Application: “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” –Josh. 24:15

A leader helps others fight off pressure to conform by doing just what Joshua did, encourage them to do what is right. Who are you encouraging? Take Jesus’ example to Peter:

“And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.” –Mt. 14:28-29

Conclusion: Everyone experiences the pressure to conform:

1) in the workplace
2) teens among other teens
3) those who are older and in places of power and influence

As I see it, there are only two choices:

1) Either buckle under the load by those who are destroying their bodies, minds and souls,
2) Or, look to Jesus, the true non-conformist and follow His example.

Appeal: Who are you following after? The god of this world? We must not conform ourselves to the things of this world, they are mutable, they are passing away. And if you’re a part of them, your passing away too. Will you step out from the crowd? Will you show what is good, acceptable, and right? Remember this, if you are conforming yourself after this world, its patterns, and flow, then you are conforming yourself to the god of this world and his end shall be “cast into the lake of fire and brimstone.” Be a transformer instead of a conformist.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DD2008]

You can still be a part of the OPC and PCA if you find them in your area. Not all of presbyterianism when down the drain don't ya know...

Today I'm going to severe ties with the PCUSA. This sunday I'm going to check out a PCA church.

 

[nhisname]

I learned about this from the Baptist site.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/597/story/538257.html This is the damning article.

I have to talk to my wife tonight and send an email to the pastors that I won't be returning. I'm a bit nervous. I don't know of any other Churches around here that are Reformed. I just found this one a couple months back. This is disturbing. I'm changing my icon to Calvinist until I figure this out.

I follow the Lord, not any denomination.

This is unfortunate. We liked that Church. I'm afraid to move. We were just getting settled. I hope that the Spirit guides us. I feel like I'm in a life raft out on an unknown ocean praying for land.

I believe this is part of the falling away described in the book of Jude. Those who endure till the end will be saved...thank you for standing up for what's right!

 

[JacobHall86]

Take the Bible seriously or leave SR. We don't want the liberal nonsense here. Take your worldly ideas elsewhere.

 

[JacobHall86]

Check out 9marks.org and use the church search feature, there has to be atleast one good reformed church in the area.