http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...-court-ruling/
I know to some people reading this, they will find my position odd, where it seems that I am often militant against what others see as acceptable. No, rather I am aggressive against any position, belief or propaganda in the Church that opposes sound doctrine. Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone").
I think everyone by now is well aware of the defiant Kentucky county clerk, who continues to refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. She said, “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience.”
Romans 13:1-7 states, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." There is a gray line here, where in one sense we are to obey authorities, those who would govern this clerk. On the other hand, if the government would require we kill babies, then we would be committing murder, and violate the set ordinances detailed in Scripture. Contesting such a command would demand vigilance. Baking cakes or issued marriage certificates does not directly violate a cardinal tenant set forth, but rather challenges the individual personally about the sin choice of others. Different situation, entirely different results. The Romans were cruel to Israel, yet Jesus said to render until this corrupt empire what is due to the evil ruler, Caesar Augustus. You can be certain listeners and teachers gasped and doubted Jesus' sanity to propose such compliance to an evil and violating government. Jesus never once tried to set right the wrongs of his world, even when they tried to install him as King by force. His kingdom was of another realm, and his allegiance was only to One.
Not that I condone homosexuals or any other type of perversion, however a Christian is not to resist a sinners personal choice based on conduct, where they are fallen, acting according to their base natures. They are the field ripe for harvest, not enemies to contest. "..Not at all meaning [avoid] the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world" 1 Cor. 5:10. It is impossible to live on earth without serving the unregenerate. Jesus was condemned by the scribes and Pharisees for associating with people of whose conduct they disapproved. The charge of eating and drinking with them which reveals to us that Jesus’ enemies did regard him as complicit in their behavior. But he did it anyway. Christians who can’t bake a cake for others or process a marriage license are putting themselves inside the bubble of Pharisaism.
The only time scripture is definitively clear about separation or making a moral distinction about another person is due to conduct or choices of those in the faith alone. "But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people" 1 Cor. 5:11. The passage goes on to say, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" We are not to make distinctions against those in the outer courts, but instead anyone who is a brother or sister whose life or conduct is grossly sinful; they are to be cast out. "God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked person from among you"" 1 Cor. 5:13. Purification of the body isn’t practiced today as it was in the original church. Tolerated impurity has a consequence. “A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough” as scripture mentions multiple times in different contexts. Allowance of lifestyle sin will contaminate the whole Church body as untreated cancer will devastate the body.
Therefore scripturally speaking, it is problematic to support this woman’s stance as a champion for the faith, rather she is making unbiblical distinctions of the fallen when it is only God’s divine act of providence to make distinction among the wicked.
I know to some people reading this, they will find my position odd, where it seems that I am often militant against what others see as acceptable. No, rather I am aggressive against any position, belief or propaganda in the Church that opposes sound doctrine. Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone").
I think everyone by now is well aware of the defiant Kentucky county clerk, who continues to refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. She said, “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience.”
Romans 13:1-7 states, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." There is a gray line here, where in one sense we are to obey authorities, those who would govern this clerk. On the other hand, if the government would require we kill babies, then we would be committing murder, and violate the set ordinances detailed in Scripture. Contesting such a command would demand vigilance. Baking cakes or issued marriage certificates does not directly violate a cardinal tenant set forth, but rather challenges the individual personally about the sin choice of others. Different situation, entirely different results. The Romans were cruel to Israel, yet Jesus said to render until this corrupt empire what is due to the evil ruler, Caesar Augustus. You can be certain listeners and teachers gasped and doubted Jesus' sanity to propose such compliance to an evil and violating government. Jesus never once tried to set right the wrongs of his world, even when they tried to install him as King by force. His kingdom was of another realm, and his allegiance was only to One.
Not that I condone homosexuals or any other type of perversion, however a Christian is not to resist a sinners personal choice based on conduct, where they are fallen, acting according to their base natures. They are the field ripe for harvest, not enemies to contest. "..Not at all meaning [avoid] the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world" 1 Cor. 5:10. It is impossible to live on earth without serving the unregenerate. Jesus was condemned by the scribes and Pharisees for associating with people of whose conduct they disapproved. The charge of eating and drinking with them which reveals to us that Jesus’ enemies did regard him as complicit in their behavior. But he did it anyway. Christians who can’t bake a cake for others or process a marriage license are putting themselves inside the bubble of Pharisaism.
The only time scripture is definitively clear about separation or making a moral distinction about another person is due to conduct or choices of those in the faith alone. "But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people" 1 Cor. 5:11. The passage goes on to say, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" We are not to make distinctions against those in the outer courts, but instead anyone who is a brother or sister whose life or conduct is grossly sinful; they are to be cast out. "God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked person from among you"" 1 Cor. 5:13. Purification of the body isn’t practiced today as it was in the original church. Tolerated impurity has a consequence. “A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough” as scripture mentions multiple times in different contexts. Allowance of lifestyle sin will contaminate the whole Church body as untreated cancer will devastate the body.
Therefore scripturally speaking, it is problematic to support this woman’s stance as a champion for the faith, rather she is making unbiblical distinctions of the fallen when it is only God’s divine act of providence to make distinction among the wicked.
Comment