SITE NOTICE | MORE..WordPress Widget v1.6! New, CSS-friendly version of the Sermon Browser is now available with further customization. Please note that updating from the previous version will reset all of the saved widget settings. .. click for more info!
There's none so blind as they who will not see - some folks will defend this compromise no matter what. You are wasting your time when dealing with the Koolaid drinkers!
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:
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 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.
Alan,
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!
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. THe laws were already enacted before Dr Paisley became First Minister - in the absence of devolution it would have been a Westminster / London British government department making the defence as it was them that enacted the laws. If we had devolution prior to the laws being enacted I do not think they would have got through the Assembly but the way the current Assembly system is repealing the law is impossible without majority Nationalist support (ie Roman Catholics whose church oppose the law yet both Roman Catholic parties of Sinn Fein and SDLP supported SOR`s). Was Christ not friends with all manner of people? Would every member of Sinn Fein have to be saved and born again before they would be considered "repented" in order to be fit for government? Not even every DUP elected representative are Christians let alone othr parties who have unrepentant sinners in their ranks - surely God does not see any differnece between a murderer and an adulterer or a liar in government?
Alan wrote: Pete - you are misrepresenting the facts as they currently stand. Dr Paisley has NOT passed any laws to promote sodomy.
Alan - if you check the Court report you will find that the lawyers opposing the Christian Institute's JR are none other than those representing Dr Ian Paisley as FM. Ho can a Christian minister fund sodomy parades, defend it in the courts against his own church, be friends with murderers of his own congregation?
The answer is that noone outside of the most deluded and stupid "Paisley is our Leader" cult follower would even attempt to come on here and justify it. I suggest you go away and read the book of Daniel as to respond as a Christian to a challenge like this.
Ian Paisley will be fundingthe Sodomites next year, he has not spoken a word publicly against them or to defend his own son since becoming FM. That tells its own story.
"But question; - Should Christians try to get into public office and try, by grace, to make a witness statement, at that level?
If you consider they should, then the ticket I described above would null and void your attempt *today* before it even begun."
so be it.
what you are suggesting is to devise your manifesto according to what is popular and expedient, so as to get elected in the first place. better not to get elected than to compromise on one's principles. it is God's view that matters, not man's. the fact that paisley professes Christ has made (so far) zero impact in terms of the immoral laws that affect us. what is the point of voting a christian into power if they won't deliver on their christian convictions?
i suggest you read some of the online commentaries or listen to sermons online about romans 13. you will find the attempt to dodge the principle of the God appointed role of the magistrate to be novel and unorthodox.
ba If you stood for parliament, Stormont in your case, on a Christian ticket vowing to reclaim Christian values, and changing the law to ban homosexuals parading, and legislating against homosexual (so called) marriage, even to reinstate the previous traditional moral values of days gone by.
Would you get into Parliament??
I appreciate you are representing Christian and Biblical law and precept.
But question; - Should Christians try to get into public office and try, by grace, to make a witness statement, at that level?
If you consider they should, then the ticket I described above would null and void your attempt *today* before it even begun.
So what do we do? Try and hopefully make some difference by witness to individuals, at all levels of society, or turn our back on this task by intransigence.
I'm sure you heard the minister say about Romans 13, that Paul here was referring to a Roman army of occupation in government of Israel, at time of writing.
This is not compromise.
This is reaching out to those who may, by grace, hear the message.
We have to live in the world which the Lord placed us and tackle all iniquity, as the Lord gives us grace to do so. But it doesn't happen overnight.
The Lord has patience. We must too. In HIS good time.
The difficulty with arguing that we should consider Sinn Fein ministers individually is that we must appeal to Sinn Fein corporately to justify their position in government. Sinn Fein should not be in government, it is therefore, in this narrow sense, irrelevant who the individual ministers are.
alan, as to civil partnerships, http://www.christian.org.uk/pressreleases/2005/december_21_2005.htm
irrespective of whether you hold to the psoition that paisley and poots are bound to observe the sinful law, i don't see them bringing forward legislation seeking the repeal or amendment of the Sexual Orientation Regulations!
There was a time christians went to jail for what they belived(includding the doc)but now he is letting politics over rule his love for God and His truth,and the free church does not have the nerve to not only stand him down as modorator but also as a minister as he cannot now preach the gosple of truth about sodomy without being a hypocrite. If the free church do nothing now,it can only mean they are just like all the other churches they have condemned over the years,
b.a. from the UK Sorry to interrupt the flow of posts but just wanted to say it is good to see you posting once again, I'm assuming here that you are the same b.a. who has shown over and over again a wonderful thankfulness to Jesus Christ for saving you and giving you eternal life and large graciousness to many of us who have so much to learn in our walk with Him. Hope you are well and the Lord is working in your life where you know His presence and His all sufficient grace.
ba didn`t the dup in lisburn do the same but were challenged in the courts and defeated? - in which case I`m not sure how the councils in Scotland have managed it except perhaps that they have not been challenged being very remote areas.
regarding voting - are you saying we should not therefore vote for any UK party such as the conservatives, dup, etc etc only genuine Christian parties? The difficulty lies in that it may now be illegal under UK and European Union law to preach or even express an opinion that regarding homosexuality etc let alone have a political party with such views openly expressed.
alan, check out the historic reformed presbyterian (covenanter) position on this.
yes it is lawful to vote, but only for a party which has bound itself to uphold the crown rights of Christ.
if jim allister does set up a party, it would need to be limited by constitution to uphold God's law. i hope he doesn't go down the dup route again, a domocratic party with christians in it.
when this happens the majority view, even if against scripture prevails.
compare the implementation of the civil partnership legislation by the registrars and coucils in the scottish isles, compared to the dup.
they did refuse to give "ceremonies" in council premises to homosexuals. the dup even in councils it controlled implemented the unjust law beyond what the law required.
Like I say - it will be this time next year before we can really make a decision on that - currently it is the outworkings of British Labour ministers in London who imposed these things outworking themselves that we are seeing. Yes, it was a government office that was defending, there is no choice in that matter as a government office is obliged to defend what is currently law, laws which now reside with the Stormont Assembly but were not enacted there, they were enacted at Westminster prior to the return of devolution.
I do however have sympathy with the position that Christians cannot be politicians - this also raises the question should Christians even vote?
Nobody has yet answered the question - if it is wrong to sit with murders / terrorists in government then surely it is wrong to sit with adulterers and liars and any other unrepentant sinner of whatever party?
"THe fact of the matter is the Free P`s, including Dr Paisley are seeking to change the SOR`s law by way of fundng the Christian Institutes legal case the result of which is due to be heard today. The Department of Culture funding of Belfast Gay Pride was also rubber stamped by Westminster Labour party direct Rule minsters prior to devolution, to try to reject it now would be a waste of tax payers money as it is clearly illegal to do so"
paisley sits as head of the office who DEFENDED the Sexual Orientation Regulations AGAINST the case brought by his church and the christian institute.
poots sits as minister over the department which this year funded the gay march.
since these two came to office they have refused to criticise or publicly oppose this waste of tax payers money.
Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
paisley and the dup's silence on these matters, and hiding behind speaking out " because its the law already" speaks volumes for them.
as you say, we will see more as this administration continues. it has not started well and it will not end well, unless the Lord intervenes.
Pete - you are misrepresenting the facts as they currently stand. Dr Paisley has NOT passed any laws to promote sodomy. The SOR`s legislation was enacted by London / Westminster ie the British Labour government - Dr Paisley and the DUP MPs voted against it. I am not following Dr Paisley in a cultic manner at all. If you care to lok through the media Ian Paisley Jnr was hauled before a standards committee in the Assembly for stating hat he was repulsed by homosexuality although he did not hate homosexual people. THe fact of the matter is the Free P`s, including Dr Paisley are seeking to change the SOR`s law by way of fundng the Christian Institutes legal case the result of which is due to be heard today. The Department of Culture funding of Belfast Gay Pride was also rubber stamped by Westminster Labour party direct Rule minsters prior to devolution, to try to reject it now would be a waste of tax payers money as it is clearly illegal to do so - next year is the time to test such things when local ministers will have been in charge.
since paisley became first minister, can you please direct me to a single instance where he has PUBLICLY spoken out against the blasphemous conduct at the gay pride march? or PUBLICLY spoken out about the sexual orientation regulations?
civil government is not neutral. as a christian he is subject to God. daniel obeyed God even when the law said he should not. ian paisley simply keeps silent or else says i can't comment or his party says we are bound to promote "equality" by higher laws.
as to sitting with terrorists - the primary function of civil governemnt is to punish evil doers. how can paisley do this when he forms a government with notorious evil doers?
as to the fpc - they have chosen unity at the expense of truth.
it may have been painful for them to examine the conduct of paisley, poots and mccrea in light of scripture, but by choosing to spare paisley's reputation by not bringing these things to the clear light of scripture (never mind disciplining in accordance with the wcf) they have damaged the cause of Christ in the province.
paisley's conduct at the minute is more akin to pontius pilate (foolishly assuming you can be neutral iexercising power or in failing to exercise it) than to daniel.
Alan wrote: Pete - are not Christians obliged to follow the law of the land according to scripture?
Alan - read the Bible before posting on here again. It is people like you who give Christians a bad name with your blind cultic-like following of a man. Peter makes it abundantly clear that we "ought to obey God rather than men" when the choice is our Christian beliefs over the Law of the land. This has also been the historic Protestant position since Luther nailed his theses to the wall and declared at the Diet of Worms that his "conscience was captive to the Word of God" no matter what the Law of Germany said or did.
Could you see Luther, Apostle Paul, WP Nicolson, Knox etc passing laws to promote sodomy - Ian Paisley has destroyed his legacy and reputation among those who truly cared about him and for him. The lickspittles who praise him in the press and at DUP HQ have no love or respect for him.
I don't think in the current age of global apostasy that there is any justification for Christians to be in politics as they inevitabley will have to deny their faith. Ian Paisley has proven that!
Dr. Ian R. K. Paisley | 3/18/2009
COMMENTS 
locked 
christopher000 from rhode island: "when god said, 'i create evil', did he create..."
