Posted on 07/16/2016 12:29:36 PM PDT by StormPrepper
SCOTTSDALE, Arizona – The Western district of the Methodist church has elected an openly gay bishop despite the denomination's ban on same-sex relationships.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
thank you.
As I pointed out: if they claim to be a brother but are unrepentant do not even associate with them. Even put them out with vim and vigor.
It’s only those honest enough to say that they are unbelievers that you have dealings with. You still don’t compromise the truth to make them happy of course.
And, yes, the homosexuals have a very clear agenda.
I don’t know if you’ve run across me before but from time to time I write about how important “identity” is, or rather how one defines oneself.
A Christian has at the core of their being the Holy Spirit, the ultimate reality of a Christian is to be just that. It is, or rather should be, the cornerstone of our sense of self identification.
But homosexuals also define themselves by this thing that they do, it is often seen as pretty much the underlying fact of who they are. This, you may recognize, lay behind the insistence that they are that way by nature and being that way by nature they have nothing to repent of: they basically, if not literally, blame God for them being homosexual.
As such their very sense of self, their identity, is made out to be “Homosexual” (capital “H”). To say that they need to repent is offensive to them, to say that they can repent doubly so.
A person CANNOT define themselves, their Identity, as “Homosexual” and as “Christian”.
That seems to me to be akin to trying to serve two masters. Anyone claiming to have repented who still makes being Homosexual (capital “H”) the focus of their sense of Identity is only fooling themselves. At best they are a cultural christian (little “c”).
But a repentant person has by the power of the Holy Spirit pushed the old identity aside for the new.
This, I’m persuaded, is that faith of a mustard seed thing. What is this faith? Well, think about it: what can a mustard even know except that it is a mustard already, the only difference between the seed and the tree it will grow into is time. Nothing else. It’s like that bit from Kung Fu Panda about the peach, only from the peach’s POV.
So all a mustard can do is believe it is what it really is. Just accept the truth.
A cucumber plant may be planted beside a mustard but it will never be a mustard and the mustard will never be a cucumber even though they grew up together. Same with wheat and tares. So to have the faith of the mustard seed must then be simply believing, without doubting, that you really are what The Lord says you are already.
Don’t think I’m saying I’m there (even saints are dumber than plants, we struggle to accept what we are), just that’s what I think it must be.
But if you fundamentally believe that you are something entirely incompatible with being a “mustard” ... well, then you probably are not a “mustard” at all.
And if you are willing to abandon the knowledge of God, that He is Holy (Holy, Holy) and His Word, to please those any honest observer knows is not among the “mustard” variety ... well, Romans 1:18-32 would seem to indicate that there is a point in time that it should be clear you’re no “mustard” yourself.
Here I suppose I need to bring up the odd infamous example of individuals who seemed long in the faith but for the cause of some sin, such as homosexuality, makes a wreck of their walk (and likely their relationships as well) for a time, if not a lifetime.
In the past I’ve supposed that there are two possibilities: first is that the person was never really repentant at all and that, God not being mocked, He turns them over to their sins AND second that such a person is a believer BUT has been dealing with the sin in their own strength rather than in the strength that God supplies by the Holy Spirit. Essentially, telling God “I got this one” and it is unconfessed sin. Telling God “I got this one” just seems a totally bonkers idea but lots of people have done it.
In a different context than sexual sin we might see Peter’s pride that he would not fall away even though everyone else did as him saying he’d “got this one”. As with Peter, I believe those times when Satan is permitted to sift saints as wheat precisely so that God can deal with this “I got this one” attitude. When people return IN FAITH (and not just leaving or, worse, as false brethren trying to sneak back into the congregation entice others to follow after them as many have done) is what demonstrates that they were and were Christians all along.
Every group that accepted priestesses or female pastors first accepted bc within marriage. Every time, as far as I can tell. Catholics, old order Mennonites, the Amish, independent Christians like the quiver full people, are the only ones that don’t buy it now. They all don’t have female clergy/leaders. At least so far.
But there are many groups that accept bc within marriage but have also never accepted women clergy or female leaders, and show no signs of ever doing so.
It might be a many mansions thing. Maybe.
Freegards
My FRiend, it’s because the customers who pay the electric and gas bills, the minister’s salary, and the supernumeraries by apportionments assigned to each church. They will determine what doctrines the denomination settles on, not the bishops,as I figure. I have the 1896 and 1900 Books of Discipline, and will in a moment send you the paragraph on ordaining women. Hang on ...
Appendix Paragraph 31. On Licensing and Ordaining Women.
§ 1. The Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church does not provide for nor contemplate the licensing women as
Local Preachers; and therefore the action of a Quarterly Conference, and of a Presiding Elder as the President
thereof, in granting such license is without authority of law, is not in accordance with the Discipline as it is, and with the uniform administration under it. --
Journal, 1880, pp.353, 354.
§ 2. The law of the Church does not authorize the ordination of women to the Ministry of the Methodist
Episcopal Church; and a Bishop is not at liberty to submit to the vote of the Conference the question of electing
women to Orders. -- Journal, 1880, p.353.
§ 3. The General Conference judges it inexpedient take any action on the subject of licensing women exhort or to
preach; and that it is also inexpedient take any action on the subject of ordaining women to the Ministry. --
Journal, 1884, p.317.
How do the members fight? You don't have to leave your church. Just resign your membership! Not being able to claim you in their numbers will drive them nuts. Sit in the pews, join the worship--but resign your membership and withhold your money and service. Donate those to something worthy.
This is a COUP
“Your desire shall be after your husband”— women were equal before the fall of human beings. Women will be equals again when humans are redeemed and those saved rewarded, when we no longer are given in marriage as marriage is understood on earth. Since the Methodists are Sorta Scritura rather than Sola Scritura, they will be one of those dishonored churches mentioned in Revelation.
When Paul, in 1 Corinthians, reiterated a short list of those who would not inherit the Kingdom he immediately followed it up with “and such were some of you”. Repentance and healing is possible.
Of course repentance and healing are possible. My question is one of intention and thus the true heart of "repentance." If the church decides to put openly unrepentant persons in positions of authority it is more or less demonstrating that repentance is not intended or no sin occurs; certainly not intending to repent any time soon.
You bring up and excellent point.
Then observers would be failing to distinguish between the Church, which is the body of all believers, and a collection of congregations.
During His earthly ministry Christ confronted various Pharisees on earning their arrogation of God’s commandments. “Arrogation” is a term often overlooked in our society as many wrongly use “abrogation” in its place, yet the difference is telling.
Abrogation is the negation of something with right.
Arrogation is to usurp, or claim you can usurp, the right.
With these congregations that are, without Scriptural authority, negating the Scripture they are engaged in arrogation.
Recall the parable: taxes have been sown among the wheat. Sometimes the “taxes”, for people are not as immobile as plants, push into leadership becoming prominent and sometimes they self-congregate ... yet their insistence never makes them “wheat”.
“Concerning” not “on earning” ... stupid auto-correct!
“Tares” ... not “taxes” ... ditto re auto-correct.
I spelled it correctly and it still changed it, even trying to just now.
Auto-correct ... proof that AI will never work?
Interesting.
"although the tares hinder the wheat, yet they make it the more beautiful to behold" Martin Luther
Can’t say I agree with Luther on this. The consequences of being a tare (darn auto-correct tried to change that to “fare” ... it’s out to get me!) are too severe.
Thanks for correcting the taxes issue the auto-correct caused earlier.
Also, I’m not much for the idea of total depravity (something like which almost seems necessary to make the contention that tares beautify the Church viable) but lean towards an idea between Calvinism and Arminianism that lacks the philosophical elegance of either, is messy, and therefore kinda like life itself.
Essentially the view is that it takes two votes to elect (God and man being in agreement), not one (either God’s or man’s) as those extremes postulate. I came to this point because I simply acknowledged that both Calvinism and Arminianism can be supported from Scripture but they are mutually exclusive views so neither can be fully accurate. Given that between them they claim the reasonable possibilities *** where just one really decides the matter that meant I had to deal with both potential voters on the issue of election having an actual, effective say.
*** another option, that Christianity is somehow inheritable, is easily falsified by Scripture, being unsustainable by them. This is distinct from, for example, Islam ... but Islam is a legal/political framework. Consider that Christ told Pilate that his Kingdom is not of this world but if it were then his disciples would be fighting ... well, Dar al-Islam is most definitely of this world and Mohammad’s disciples are fighting. Thus these are in stark contrast to each other.
Satan is taking over the churches, one by one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.