Lance Eccles wrote: No he doesn't. They hate God. That is why, when they die, they will voluntarily fling themselves away from him forever.
God does indeed hate the wicked. He describes himself as hating sinners in multiple passages of Scripture. Here are two that leap to mind: Psalm 5:4-6: "For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; no evil dwells with you. The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity. You destroy those who speak falsehood; The Lord abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit." Psalm 11:5 "The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates."
Ian Paisley has lost his church, party, family's future, and now his reputation - does anyone believe that his decision to enter into a political union with an unrepentant mass murderer of fellow Free Presbyterians was a good idea after all?
An appropriate precedent from Scripture for his compromise is:
2Ch 20:37 Then Eliezer the son of Dodavah of Mareshah prophesied against Jehoshaphat, saying, Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, the LORD hath broken thy works. And the ships were broken, that they were not able to go to Tarshish.
Dr Paisley cannot block a EU directive - Sermonaudio needs to get their facts straight before repeating FPC propaganda.
All he can do, at best, is hold it up for a few months. Why does Sermon Audio not link the fact that it was Ian Paisley's lawyers who defended the Sexual Orientation Regulatins in September 2007 in the High Court in Belfast?
I have listened to the Sermon which is a diatribe against one of his ministers for daring to criticize him as well as a hollow defense of his actions.
Two prominent points:
(1) The FACT remains that IRKP did take part in a service that he knew from before the beginning of the Service that a Jesuit Priest would be leading in prayer and reading the Scriptures. I accept he may not have known about this before he arrived but HE ADMITS HE KNEW THE MOMENT HE ARRIVED!! So, why did he not leave or stay outside till the Priest was finished his piece? Judging from his excuse, we can only deduce that if it had of been a Sodomite minister he would still have stayed on to speak as he justifies his presence by waiting to see the Scouts give their pledge of allegiance to the Queen!
(2) IRKP did in fact go to the High Court in Belfast to defend the Sodomite Laws against the Evangelical Christian Community's legal challenge. The Case Report is here:
Great Sermon! A tremendous Bible exposition and a word of encouragement to us all.
Than you Rev Foster for taking a stand - why or why are not more speaking out against the dreadful apostasy of attending Hindu services and Ecumenical services?
God is in control - He will overcome all of the wicked governments of this world including the one headed up by murderers in Stormont. The blood of Paul Quinn and Eric Lutton cries out against such abominations of truth!
Dessie wrote: Thank you Josh from USA... Even though I did not agree with the endorsement, Pete has gone a little overboard with his accusations about Stephen Jones and Ian Paisley. He is taking everything out of context regarding Stephen Jones; I listened to that sermon also... As far a Dr. Paisley, he needs to come up with come proof just like you said.....
Bob Jones University announced this year that they would no longer refer to the Pope as the antichrist.
Stephen Jones in the chapel recently stated (here on sermonaudio) that he has "many homosexual friends."
Ian Paisley sends his lawyers down to the High Court in Ulster to enfore Sodomite Laws against his own church, congratulates this week the new RC "Cardinal," and gives 400,000 pounds to gay rights groups from his budget this year.
Now we have Bob Jones III endorsing a man for president who says he is a god. Can anyone tell me who are the fundamentalists in the world now?
No doubt, the Jones family will have no problem voting for the antichrist when he comes!!
Alan wrote: Nothing can be changed unless all are agreed so in this case since the funding is already allocated by Peter Hain and the Nationalist are pro-gay rights it cannot be reversed but come next year when such proposals can be vetoed unless all sides agree.
Sorry, but he is to blame as he signed up for the job KNOWING what he would have to do this year. Next year he has to fund them as the Equality Laws and his Ministerial Code are binding on Ian Paisley. His only option is to resign and his actions over the Civil Partnerships and this year's budget demonstrate that he certainly will not do that!
christian wrote: Well said Gary, I too was a witness to hearing Dr Paisley confirm he had not signed those papers. â€˜Peteâ€™ maybe doesnâ€™t understand there is no internet link to the spoken word. God bless Dr Paisley.
Samuel Morrison (a Free Presbyterian) wrote to Dr Paisley's office under the Freedom of Information Act and it was officially confirmed that Dr Paisley's lawyers had acted to defend the Sodomite laws against the FPC judicial review
So you can see, I would take Dr Paisley's promises with a pinch of salt. The Telegraph confirmed that Dr Paisley's office also funded to the tune of 180,000 pounds Sodomite groups this year.
Ian Paisley can hide behind weasel words that he never actually physically signed the cheque but the facts are that his department that he is legally and morally responsible issued these funds under his orders when HE WAS IN CHARGE. In the UK, it is called ministerial accountability something Ian Paisley used time and time again to call for the NI Secretary of State's resignation after any major attrocity.
FACTS are difficult things to wash away, save for the gullible.
Alan wrote: "PROMOTE EQUALITY and prevent discrimination;" AND? Are you seriously saying that that is at odds with Christianity? Pete- I read your article and it says "This funding package was launched by Secretary of State Peter Hain last year" - so I was wrong in part.
Promotion of equality is how it is defined in the legislation ie Equality Acts. That means that gay marriage, gay adoption etc must be actively promoted by Ian Paisley. I hope you could understand how unbiblical that is.
The SOR preevnt Christian guesthouses in NI from refusing sodomites from sleeping together in their guesthomes -this effectively puts them out of buisness. Again, I hope you understand why so many Free Presbyterians are furious with Ian Paisley for sending his lawyers to defend these laws against his own church.
The funding is curently controlled by Dr Paisley - how is this "Christian Stewardship?" I agree we interact with sinners every day but we should not enter into agreements to be joint-partners with them knowing we would have to work with them to promote iniquity.
Daniel refused as did Joseph, Luther et al but Big Ian says it is fine!
Gary Craig wrote: Pete, I HEARD him make the statement last week so donâ€™t tell me he didnâ€™t say it. Bottom line Pete, we have a system of government under presbytery based on New Testament teaching. It has been betrayed by some who have breached their vow of confidentially but youâ€™re happy to rely upon them as sources?
Just find the public link and we all will believe you. In fact get the Big Man to sign a piece of paper for us all to see and we will.
A private statement at a private meeting is not evidence (if it really happened which I doubt). When you are at it, can you ask what his lawyers were doing at the High Court this week defending sodomite rights against the Free Presbyterian Church
Seaton wrote: ba Ok you keep preaching to the converted and "The" Church will go amongst sinners to work. Matthew 9:11 "And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? 12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. 13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Ian Paisley has gone in to partnership with the IRA - he signed the agreement and negotiated it! Please do not blaspheme our Lord in equating His evangelism which resulted in Him interacting with sinners with this unholy alliance.
Secondly, our Lord, Daniel, Joseph etc refused to engage in any practice, pass any Law, obey any Law that contravened the principles of Scripture. Ian Paisley has done this - so please don't dare to put him in the same category.
Finally, Ian Paisley "claims" to be in politics to witness - where are the Nicodemuses and Theophilus that he has reached with the gospel in 30odd years? Name one MP he has led to Christ!
Alan wrote: Pete - it was not Paisleys department that funded the event. THe funding was allocated by Westminster Labour government minister / Northern Ireland Office prior to devolution, after devolution responsibility for such things is for the Department of Culture which DUP member and Free P deacon Edwin Poots has control of albeit he probbaly did not have the power to deny funding already allocated and would probably have been vetoed by nationalist anyhow - it will be next year when it comes around again before we see where he stands as it will have been totally under his control.
Alan the facts are that it is Ian Paisley's department. Please apologise after reading the following report:
Gary Craig wrote: Pete, Presbytery is a private meeting and all elders and ministers take a vow not to disclose the details of their meetings...Dr Paisley has made a public statement within the last week confirming that he has refused to comply with requests for him to grant money to the cause of Sodomites. .
There is no such vow - Rev Foster put some details on his website of the Presbytery meeting in June. It is a voluntary code of silence - if not, why did Ian Paisley comment on the meeting on Sunday morning?
Secondly, Ian Paisley has said no such thing about sodomites. Show us the link that he has guaranteed that he will not fund them from his office. He will not and has not said this publicly as he knows he would immediately face a Judicial Review for breaching his duties as FM.
You seem to know Ian Paisley very well - then go up and ask him straight at your next church meeting to write out a guarantee that he will not give money to sodomite groups in next year's budget which he is required to my law.
When you can produce that piece of paper, then we will all withdraw the allegation. If you cannot (and I know you can't) thenm you should do the honourable thing and leave the Martyrs.
Alan wrote: Pete - if indeed such thingshappen next year then it will indeed be of their own accord not of Westminsters. My point is that the office of First Minister is obliged in law to defend laws that are already enacted.
It does not matter where the source of the Laws are. Christians are commanded not to make, implement or obey such laws.
I cannot believe any professing Christian here is seriously defending the fact that Ian Paisley was justified in givng money to sodomite groups from his budget for a parade that carried a banner calling Jesus Christ a sodomite. I am not saying that Ian Paisley was happy about doing this but the fact that he was prepared to do this says a lot about his relationship to the Lord and his love for power.
Your arguments would hold water, save for the fact that Ian Paisley has voluntarily put himself in the position to administer these laws and defend them in court. He also boasted that he had negotiated the terms of the job in St Andrews so you cannot say it was simply foisted on him. No one is forcing him to take the job of FM - he wanted it and he understood perfectly what it would involve.
That is the saddest thing - that he knew the wickednes he would have to do - and still did it!