Episcopal Head Clarifies 'Heresy' Comments

bruce »

Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:19 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 8

believer - responding to Bruce's challenge: >> "bruce, the point is that although a person could be put to death for committing the sins of homosexuality it was not required or mandatory that they be put to death and that according to the Word of God the only crime that had a mandatory death sentence was murder. <<

believer,

At this point I elect to disengage on this topic. You have made the above assertion numerous times, but have offered zero proof. I demonstrated numerous offenses for which the Old Testament required the death penalty. You have disagreed, but offered no proof at all. So, I conclude that you are unable to do so.

Episcopal Head Clarifies 'Heresy' Comments

bruce »

Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:24 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 1

It is often stated that Jesus did not address homosexual marriage at all - and it is true that Jesus never used the word "homosexual." But does that mean Christ had no opinion on the issue of what constitutes a marriage? Once when the Pharisees were questioning Jesus about divorce, He noted:

“Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator made them *male* and *female*? For this reason a *man* will leave his father and his 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 not man separate” (Matt. 19:4-6 NIV).

Jesus took the Pharisees all the way back to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 and affirmed God’s original intent for marriage - "male and female." Compelling insight from Jesus. Someone will surely object: But the Pharisees were asking about divorce not homosexual marriage. True, but the Genesis account to which Jesus referred them, is not speaking directly to divorce either. Jesus was pointing to God’s foundational, ordained and revealed plan for marriage. (* The Greek word translated “wife” in Matthew 19:5 is: gynaiki - an adult woman; specifically a wife.) And God gave no other relationship that constituted a marriage.

The conclusion as to what Jesus thought concerning marriage must be that Jesus affirmed God’s plan for Biblical marriage is to be between "male and female" —one man and one woman. And Jesus confirmed, "Scripture cannot be broken" (broken is the Greek word: luo - "unbound from authority" - John 10:35). In other words, Jesus was telling us that scripture cannot be unbound, or separated, from the issuing authority—God.

Episcopal Head Clarifies 'Heresy' Comments

bruce »

Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

>> bruce and hman, perhaps a better word I should have used would be required as opposed to demanded. In Hebrew the word ransom in the biblical sense meant, "to expiate", "bring to exemption from punishment". And once again the only sin that did not allow for this was murder which required the death penalty to be carried out. <<

Hi believer,

>> A ransom could be paid for any other crime that allowed for the death penalty, but not murder... <<

I agree with you on this SINGLE verse (Numbers 35:31) regarding murder, but I believe you are reading too much into the verse. ALL this verse says is that there is no ransom that can be paid to expiate the crime of murder. It does NOT say that a ransom *could* be paid for ALL other crimes demanding the death penalty. Please provide scripture texts proving that a ransom could be paid for the six passages I listed that demanded the death penalty (and remember, even if you fail on one, your claim is void).

What I am getting at is, so far, you have demonstrated only a single instance where the death penalty cannot be expiated in any way, but you have made a *global* claim that this is the ONLY crime for which no ransom could mitigate. What I am saying is - so far - you have made a *global* statement, but provided evidence for only a single instance. In other words, you have not yet *proved* your exception (that murder is the ONLY crime for which there is no possible chance of clemency).

By the way, who keeps flagging homosexual Man's posts as "inappropriate?" I have looked at several of them (ones flagged) and find nothing offensive.

Episcopal Head Clarifies 'Heresy' Comments

bruce »

Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:57 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

To: Homosexual Man.

I noticed your post challenging the claim of "believer" that the only sin in the Old Testament that demanded the death penalty was murder.

I made a post just before yours that quoted six Old Testament passages that demanded the death penalty - and none were for murder -- (and there are others). So whether "believer" answers you or not, his claim is destroyed.

Episcopal Head Clarifies 'Heresy' Comments

bruce »

Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:43 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

"For God so loved the world..." A highly insightful passage concerning the word "world" appears in the prayer of Jesus in John 17:6-9:

“I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am *not praying for the world* but for those whom you have given me [out of the world - see John 6:37], for they are yours.”

Here Jesus plainly says that He is NOT praying for the world (in the sense of all individuals), but specifically for those His Father has given him out of the world, a smaller group out of the whole. So the person who insists that the word “world” in John 3:16 is a reference to every individual without exception, faces the difficult task of explaining why Jesus says explicitly He is NOT praying for “the world,” the very people this person claims are spoken of in John 3:16.

The Zondervan Encyclopedia of Biblical Words, (p. 639) defines the New Testament word world as follows:

“In the New Testament, the most significant word for “world” is kosmos. It’s original and basic meaning is order or arrangement. The Old Testament has no word corresponding to kosmos, which is found almost 200 times in the New Testament. It has a very flexable meaning: (1.) The world of created things. (2.) The arena where human life and experience occur. (3.) Humanity itself. As a theological term, kosmos portrays human society as a system warped by sin, tormented by beliefs, desires, and emotions that surge blindly and uncontrollably.”

So the word world (kosmos), applied to humans, has more of a general meaning rather than a specific meaning; more on the order of creation, society, or human kind - in general - rather than each individual specifically.

Episcopal Head Clarifies 'Heresy' Comments

bruce »

Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:27 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

believer posted: >> Numbers teaches us that the only sin in the Old Testament that demanded the death penalty was murder... <<

Exodus 21:15 “Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death."


Exodus 21:16: "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."

Exodus 21:17 "“Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death."

Exodus 22:19 :“Whoever lies [has sex] with an animal shall be put to death."

Numbers 3:10 "And you shall appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall guard their priesthood. But if any outsider comes near, he shall be put to death.”

Numbers: 15:32,35 "While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day....And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.”

Episcopal Head Clarifies 'Heresy' Comments

bruce »

Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:03 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

What Jehovahnissi (The Lord is our Banner) is saying about unregenerate man's "freewill" is correct. Unregenerate Man (not Born Again) does have a *kind* of "freewill" -- he can certainly choose to: not murder, not steal, not lie, etc. BUT prior to regeneration, Man does not have the "freewill" to choose Christ as his Savior.

Let's look at just a few passages: Jesus told Nicodemus "Truly truly, unless a man has been *born again,* (made regenerate by the Holy Spirit) he cannot *see* the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). The word *see* is the Greek word "horao" and means "to see with the eyes and perceive with the mind" - in other words - to understand. So, unregenerate man cannot perceive of the Kingdom of God in any sense that would lead him to "choose" Christ as Savior. (As Nicodemus so aptly demonstrated.)

1st. Corinthians 2:14 further affirms what Jesus said: "The man without the Spirit [some versions say: natural man] does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. So unless one has been made regenerate (born again) by the work of the Sovereign Spirit of God, he "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God" -- therefore, he will not choose salvation.

Finally, "And this is the judgment: the light (Jesus) has come into the world, and 'people' loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil" (John 3:19). The word "people" is the Greek word "anthropos" -- and means Mankind as a whole. So in their unregenerate state - all Mankind loved the darkness (their sins) rather than Jesus.

So, unregenerate Mankind does have some degree of freewill, but not in the sense that would give him an ability to make a choice for Christ.

Episcopal Head Clarifies 'Heresy' Comments

bruce »

Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:48 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 0

>> You quote scripture 'lest any man should boast' while boasting that you are right with god and the above are not, that your behavior is acceptable when a gay's is not, that your view of the bible is more perfect than others. <<

I know your post was not directed towards me as I posted after you. However, I would like to point out that as a Christian, I (personally) do not believe my lifestyle is more perfect than others - that's is why I confess my sins and seek to repent of them. But how would it benefit me (Kingdom of God wise) for the leadership of my denomination to assure me that my sin was NOT sin - when the Bible clearly states it IS? That kind of "neighbor" could very well put me on the path to Hell.

A person is not homophobic when they advocate for the truth of Scripture. IF I should say to someone living in what Scripture states is a sinful *lifestyle* - "You are going to Hell !" - then I am judging my brother and I am wrong. BUT, if I should say "ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, the lifestyle you are leading inherits Hell" - then I am being a good neighbor (Biblically speaking) because I am telling him the truth -- I love the homosexual with a Biblical love and don't want to see him reap the punishment for living unrepentant in that *lifestyle.*

There is a vast difference between a person who commits sins - but repents - and a person who lives unrepentant in a "lifestyle" of sin while claiming it's OK because his church tells him his sin is not sin. The Bible tells us that: "In the last days, many will not put up with sound doctrine but will gather to themselves teachers who will tell them what their itching ears WANT to hear." And that is an apt description of the modern Episcopal leadership. By affirming people in lifestyles of unrepentant sin, they are putting the feet of those people on the path to Hell (this is not simply MY personal interpretation - but is according to the very clear teaching of Scripture ).

Now the WAY the Episcopal leadership gets around the fact that Scripture clearly states homosexuality is a sin -- is by denying that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. But once you go down that path, almost anything the Bible calls sin can be dismissed as simply "the bias (or ignorance) of the culture of that age." And when you do that, you have ceased being a "Church" in the Biblical sense and all that remains is a "church" in the "cultural" sense -- which is merely a secular religious institution with religious trappings playing at "Church" while affirming the desires of the fallen culture. As Scripture so aptly puts it: "They have the *appearance* of godliness, but deny its power. Avoid such people" (2 Timothy 3:5). The Episcopal leadership has stripped the Bible of its authority and so has reduced itself to merely a cultural "faux church."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addressing Tax Issues, IRS Representation

bruce »

Sun Aug 30, 2009 4:42 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

>> You quote scripture 'lest any man should boast' while boasting that you are right with god and the above are not, that your behavior is acceptable when a gay's is not, that your view of the bible is more perfect than others. <<

I know your post was not directed towards me as I posted after you. However, I would like to point out that as a Christian, I (personally) do not believe my behavior is more perfect than others - that's is why I confess my sins and seek to repent of them. My lifestyle is NOT more perfect that others - but I seek to repent and change. But how would it benefit me (Kingdom of God wise) for the leadership of my denomination to assure me that my sin was NOT sin - when the Bible clearly states it IS? That kind of "neighbor" could very well put me on the path to Hell.

A person is not automatically a bigot or homophobe when they advocate for the truth of Scripture. IF I should say to someone living in what Scripture states is a sinful *lifestyle* - "You are going to Hell !" - then I am judging my brother and I am wrong. BUT, if I should say "ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, the lifestyle you are leading inherits Hell" - then I am being a good neighbor (Biblically speaking) because I am telling him the truth -- I love him and don't want to see him reap the punishment for living in that *lifestyle* unrepentant.

There is a vast difference between a person who commits sins - but repents - and a person who lives unrepentant in a "lifestyle" of sin while claiming it's OK because his church tells him he is not. The Bible tells us that: "In the last days, many will not put up with sound doctrine but will gather to themselves teachers who will tell them what their itching ears WANT to hear." And that is an apt description of the modern Episcopal leadership. By affirming people in lifestyles of unrepentant sin, they are putting the feet of those people on the path to Hell (this is not simply MY personal interpretation - but is according to the very clear teaching of Scripture ).

Now the WAY the Episcopal leadership gets around the fact that Scripture clearly states homosexuality is a sin -- is by denying that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. But once you go down that path, almost anything the Bible calls sin can be dismissed as simply "the bias (or ignorance) of the culture of that age." And when you do that, you have ceased being a "Church" in the Biblical sense and all that remains is a "church" in the "cultural" sense -- which is merely a secular religious institution with religious trappings playing at "Church" while affirming the desires of the fallen culture. As Scripture so aptly puts it: "They have the *appearance* of godliness, but deny its power. Avoid such people" (2 Timothy 3:5). The Episcopal leadership has stripped the Bible of its authority and so has reduced itself to merely a cultural "faux church."

Episcopal Head Clarifies 'Heresy' Comments

bruce »

Sun Aug 30, 2009 3:14 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 0

Even unbelievers can love their neighbors in *some* fashion. "Loving your neighbor" in the Biblical sense is clearly illustrated by the parable of the Good Samaritan. However, "loving your neighbor," in the Biblical sense, is NOT demonstrated by telling him/her that his sin is not sin. A loving Christian tells his neighbor the truth. And the truth is -- according to the Bible -- homosexuality is severely and unambiguously condemned in about half a dozen places in both the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, when Schori tells her "church" that homosexuality is not a sin, she is NOT demonstrating a BIBLICAL love for her neighbor -- but merely a societal or cultural love. It is, however, a destructive type of "love" as it enables the sinner to feel good about his sin and therefore he does not feel the need to seek repentance (much like telling an alcholic that his lifestyle is perfectly normal). Schori is a doorman for the "wide gate that leads to destruction," and her denomination is THE poster child for open heresy and apostasy.

I have actually heard Episcopal priests claim that persons can be "committed Christians" and reject the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, and the deity of Christ (surveys show that only a miniscule 17% of Episcopal clergy believe the Bible is the authoritative Word of God) -- and they are allowed to remain in their positions as clergy! It is a sad denomination whose membership has fallen by nearly 50% in the last few decades as the Biblically faithful abandon that sinking ship.

Orthodox Bishops Call Episcopal Church's Actions 'Cynical Double-Think'

bruce »

Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:56 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

Why is it that whenever someone stands against the homosexual lifestyle - based on Biblical teachings in multiple places in both the Old and New Testaments - some insist on labeling them "bigots?"

I don't hate people who are homosexual, but to tell them that their lifestyle is compatible with Biblical teaching would be to point them in the direction of "the wide gate that leads to destruction," (Jesus, Matthew 7:13). And for the Episcopal denomination to ordain people whose lifestyles are clearly incompatible with Biblical teaching is to place their denomination squarely on the outside of Christianity. Although the saying is not found in the Bible, it is surely implied that we are to "hate the sin but show love to the sinner." But loving the sinner does not extend to *ordaining* his sin.

I have a relative who is homosexual and I love him. But neither would I give him assurance that his lifestyle is Biblical. The Episcopal "church" has watered down (and explained away) Scripture to such an extent that they are no longer truly an orthodox "Biblical Church," but merely a "cultural religious society."

Thousands Rally Against Gay Civil Unions in Hawaii

bruce »

Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:10 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

>> "I stand firm on the fact that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality." << >> While you may "stand firm" on that *opinion* - it like standing firm on quicksand. The Bible condemns homosexuality in the most severe terms in several passages in both the Old and New Testaments. Furthermore, Jesus affirmed that marriage was to be between a man and a woman. There is no Biblical ground for favoring homosexual marriage at all (despite the twisting and contorting of liberal clergy and religious, but apostate, politicians).

Two PCUSA Presbyteries Reject Pro-Gay Clergy Measure

bruce »

Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

[ "How very sad that homophobia is more important to these two presbyteries than the integrity of the Presbyterian Church." ] << >>

I believe you have it exactly backwards. The integrity of the (TRUE) church is of the utmost importance to these people. That's why they voted against what scripture, in numerous places, calls "sin." Furthermore, you misused the word homophobia. It means - an irrational fear OF homosexuals. They do not "fear" homosexuals themselves, but they fear "FOR" homosexuals considering that scripture clearly teaches that lifestyle "will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven." The local presbyteries are far more Biblically grounded than their ultra liberal national leadership. God bless them.

Anglican Head Sees Success in Unity Efforts, Recognizes Challenges

bruce »

Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:17 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

So much for the "success in unity." Yesterday, the six Episcopal Bishops of California ALL announced their support of homosexual marriage and their opposition to Proposition 8 which would define marriage (in California) as one man and one woman. There simply can be no unity in apostasy for the true Church.

Do Americans Really Know Who Evangelicals Are?

bruce »

Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Many who *think* they are "Evangelicals" really aren't. George Barna, the highly respected Christian statistician offers a definition that is pretty accurate. Take a look at this link.

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=17

Anglican Head Sees Success in Unity Efforts, Recognizes Challenges

bruce »

Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:00 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

As scripture says, "what fellowship can light have with darkness?" (The inferred answer being: None!) The Episcopal leadership refers to the Biblically orthodox (who have left) as "breakaway churches." However, it is the Episcopal leadership (itself) that has broken away from Biblical truth and is wildly apostate. Although Canterbury puts on a brave faux appearance of unity and communion - in truth, there is none. Since the renegade Episcopal leadership will NOT change its ways, the Biblically faithful must finally and regrettably separate themselves from the community of this willfully apostate "church" (or share in a "unity" of apostasy).

Anglican Head Sees Success in Unity Efforts, Recognizes Challenges

bruce »

Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:53 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

[Headline]: Anglican Head Sees Success in Unity Efforts

American Episcopal priest George Conger, Chief Correspondent for the Church of England Newspaper, does not think so. Listen to this interview:

http://almohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2008-08-05

Minister to Face Court Again for Wedding Lesbian Couple

bruce »

Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

[ "Good for Reverend Edwards! The Bible also does not forbid pre-marital sex, just adultery." ]

Let's let the Bible speak for itself: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor adulterers, no homosexuals, nor sodomites, not thieves, or covetous, not drunkards, nor revilers, or extortionist will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NKJV).

The word "fornicator" is the Greek word "pornos," (sometimes translated "sexually immoral") and *does* include those who engage in premarital sex. It should be noted that those who have done this may repent (stop doing it) and ask God for forgiveness.

Minister to Face Court Again for Wedding Lesbian Couple

bruce »

Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The fact is, that just like last time, nothing will happen. The PCUSA has become very weak in enforcing violations of vows regarding its pastors.

Exposing the Darwinian Paradox

bruce »

Tue May 20, 2008 5:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

>> A paradox is a statement or proposition that contradicts itself. <<

This is an inaccurate statement. A paradox is a statement that "seems" to contradict itself, but may nevertheless be true. A statement that contradicts itself is simply an incorrect statement.