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!
US immigration chief: Same-sex ties are family ties
Same-sex couples will be considered “family relationships” in immigration proceedings, according to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, a move that could help stem the deportation of those in gay or lesbian binational relationships.
Close family ties to the United States are a factor considered by authorities in deportation cases, and gay and lesbian advocates have long argued for same-sex couples to have the same immigration rights as opposite-sex couples.
“In an effort to make clear the definition of the phrase ‘family relationships,’ I have directed ICE to disseminate written guidance to the field that the interpretation of the phrase ‘family relationships’ includes long-term, same-sex partners,” Napolitano said in a letter....
Frank wrote: I was once arguing with a Catholic apologist and I asked him why Rome put to death those who would read the scriptures for themselves. He said, it was because they were ignorant and therefore would be led astray and would lead others astray. I think our creedal friend would say the same thing if you think about it. But he doesn't realize it.
When a person is immersed in the Holy Ghost, they become totally engrossed with what the Spirit would teach them and lead them in. This is very good.
When a person is immersed in what they perceive to be historic puritanism, they become totally engrossed with puritan books, puritan principles, puritan worship, puritan websites, puritan this and puritan that. They never talk about Jesus Christ and a personal relationship with HIM, they never talk about loving the lost or seeking to obey the Great Commission, they act arrogantly and deceptively, they come across as mean and bigoted, and they can only "love one another", that is, those who are covenanters like themselves. All others are apostates, heretics, heterodox, or Wesleyanistic arminists. This is not very good.
Lurker wrote: For whose benefit did Jesus speak these words?
Let me answer for our friend common sense. The Holy Spirit was either speaking for the reformers and the protestant creeds or to those who wrote Rome's canons. It could not have been the Apostles or "all" future believers.
This is a cute story, but true. I was once arguing with a Catholic apologist and I asked him why Rome put to death those who would read the scriptures for themselves. He said, it was because they were ignorant and therefore would be led astray and would lead others astray. I think our creedal friend would say the same thing if you think about it. But he doesn't realize it.
Sorry to interrupt.
Oh, I disagree with both you and John regarding a scriptural definition of truth.
common sense wrote: GOD wrote; "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:" - I assume you believe this to be true. However in your statement above you imply it to be in error, compared with your own interpretations.
common sense wrote: a] Here you have rejected other Christians and presumably by what 'THEY' wrote oppsite what 'YOU' think. GOD wrote; "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:" - I assume you believe this to be true. However in your statement above you imply it to be in error, compared with your own interpretations. b] Who is correct Frank? or the creed? written by a genuine Christian who was not trying to deceive, but working with the indwelling Holy Spirit. My whole point is that you three are rejecting whole swaths of writings by devout Christians on Biblical themes and truths. Your arguement appears to be that you know better and you can read the Scripture more accurately than historic Christians have recorded. Have you any idea what humility consists of?
Thanks for clarifying your thoughts.
Who was Jesus referring to on John 16:13 when he used the pronoun "you". Was it the Apostles or to all future believers in Christ? Either way; the Apostles or future believers would make you wrong.
My point was that neither me or the creed are to be relied upon, but God's word. I do know that I will not trust a creed over the word of God. As I asked, which one should I bow down to?
common sense wrote: My whole point is that you three are rejecting whole swaths of writings by devout Christians on Biblical themes and truths.
Oh yeah?
And you don't reject the excellent writings, sermons and teachings of Charles Hadden Spurgeon, George Whitefield, John Bunyan, C.T.Studd and plenty of other God-ordained Bible Teachers?
I can just imagine the two John's of history conspiring to enforce even these men to conform to Puritanism, and that, by literal force, if they once had the power to do so. Christianity? Not on your life.
And if you don't believe me, just read the history of England, Wales, and Scotland, and see just how militant the Puritan cause was.
Frank wrote: a] I am saying that anything the reformers wrote was written by mere men and therefore should not be esteemed beyond scripture that was written by the Holy Spirit.
b] but if I disagree with it, then should I bow to the creed or to my understanding from scripture?
I have selected two of your remarks above. a] Here you have rejected other Christians and presumably by what 'THEY' wrote oppsite what 'YOU' think. GOD wrote; "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:" - I assume you believe this to be true. However in your statement above you imply it to be in error, compared with your own interpretations.
b] Who is correct Frank? or the creed? written by a genuine Christian who was not trying to deceive, but working with the indwelling Holy Spirit.
My whole point is that you three are rejecting whole swaths of writings by devout Christians on Biblical themes and truths. Your arguement appears to be that you know better and you can read the Scripture more accurately than historic Christians have recorded. First I challenge you to prove this. Second I am surprised that you as a Christian cannot perceive the arrogance of such a conviction. Have you any idea what humility consists of?
John UK wrote: Ah yes, I was going to quote John 17:17.
Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word (logos) is truth.
Excellent verse. Truth and word (logos) is one and the same. Then compare:
Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word (logos) was God (theos).
So now we have truth is word (logos) and word (logos) is God (theos) which is in perfect harmony with the next verse:
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
And then John wrote this:
1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God (theos, logos) is love (agape); and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
And then Paul wrote:
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word (logos), even in this; Thou shalt love (agapo) thy neighbour as thyself.
The perfection and cover to cover consistency and harmony of the bible never ceases to amaze and humble me. I liken it to a finely tuned and practiced symphony compared to a single stringed harp (doctrines and commentaries of fallible men paraded as "truth").
common sense wrote: I see John, Frank and Lurker continue to refuse to respond to the accusations made about their blasphemous and unorthodox statements. Doubt about their ability to discern truth therefore remains extant. The subtle method by which they avoid direct answer, only to sidestep and circumvent the issue at hand, illustrates their culpability as well as their deceit.
If you will quote one of my supposed "blasphemous and unorthodox statements" I will respond to it. But alas, 'ye will not'. And ye know what that means, don't you?
Of course, I knew from past experience that you carefully avoid making substantial accusations, in a direct way, thus exposing your lack of seriousness, or maybe a deceptive nature.
And I'm longing to know what you regard as a blasphemous statement. So come on, search out my posts and post it up.
common sense wrote: I see John, Frank and Lurker continue to refuse to respond to the accusations made about their blasphemous and unorthodox statements. Doubt about their ability to discern truth therefore remains extant. The subtle method by which they avoid direct answer, only to sidestep and circumvent the issue at hand, illustrates their culpability as well as their deceit.
Okay, I will attempt to answer what I consider to be the question and issue. I am saying that anything the reformers wrote was written by mere men and therefore should not be esteemed beyond scripture that was written by the Holy Spirit. All men error to some degree because they are not infallible, but the Holy Spirit never errors. So, my way is to not refer to creeds or such things, but to the scriptures themselves. I have nothing against reading a creed, but if I disagree with it, then should I bow to the creed or to my understanding from scripture? Now, if you disagree with this statement to any degree, please let me know and I will then respond. But, please don't say I am inferring something beyond what I just stated. I am simply not like those who would say "I am of Paul or I am of Apollos". My question mark in my comment is the main issue.
I see John, Frank and Lurker continue to refuse to respond to the accusations made about their blasphemous and unorthodox statements. Doubt about their ability to discern truth therefore remains extant. The subtle method by which they avoid direct answer, only to sidestep and circumvent the issue at hand, illustrates their culpability as well as their deceit.
Lurker wrote: The latter, John, of which I believe there is only one and Jesus spoke of in John 16:13. Contrast that to Christian truths of which there are multitudes in doctrines, creeds, confessions, etc. interspersed with error.
John UK wrote: Hello bro, just so as I get my answer ready correctly, is it a "biblical definition of truth" you are looking at, or a "definition of biblical truth"? If it is the former, I think I have the answer for it.
The latter, John, of which I believe there is only one and Jesus spoke of in John 16:13. Contrast that to Christian truths of which there are multitudes in doctrines, creeds, confessions, etc. interspersed with error.
My whole point in making an issue of it with Walling was to press him to make good on a check he wrote with his mouth. Obviously that isn't going to happen.
Hello bro, just so as I get my answer ready correctly, is it a "biblical definition of truth" you are looking at, or a "definition of biblical truth"? If it is the former, I think I have the answer for it.
common sense wrote: I presume then what you believe is that they wrote lies!!
Taking that concept to its natural conclusion I presume then that you believe truth did not arrive as exegesis of Scripture until Lurker was born!
Ha!
It all boils down to the contrast in your definition of biblical truth, which you stedfastly refuse to illuminate us with, and mine. You believe all truth came from the doctrines which flowed out of Geneva while I believe the truth is found in the free bible which flowed out of Geneva (which I made very clear in the post your quoted from but willfully chose to ignore).
You have followed in the footsteps of the Puritans while I have followed in the footsteps of the Pilgrims.
It's that simple, friend, and to spin the facts any differently is willful dishonesty.
* * *
Frank,
Your encouraging comments were greatly appreciated. I have to believe there are many more of us outside the gates than we realize. But I trust that is where God wants me at this time and I am content. I will remember you in my prayers as well.
Frank wrote: Off to mow the grass! Do they have grass in Wales? We have lots in Clearwater Florida and lots of "sun". Eat your heart out.
Plenty of grass, rocks and rain. Mild climate by the coast, but very short on sun. That's a big cause of vitamin d loss. But I'm content because the Lord has placed me here, even though I'm a sassenach.
Lurker, to continue. A sister in the Lord who is very much a prayer warrior, told me that in prayer she became convinced that the Lord would send a man to preach the gospel, and that he would be setting up a church not far from where she lived. Of course, she was praying for this, and so was I, but with less faith. It is an absolute miracle that God has blessed us with a man who is in constant demand because of his teaching gift. As I write, he is preaching at a conference on Shetland, which is way north of the north coast of ScottyLand.
God is so gracious, and it makes me think that he has plans for this place, and people to save in his sovereign will.
The gatherings are usually about 20-30 folks, with no conversions as yet, but I'm sure the Lord is blessing the word preached, it is most excellent, and I am praising God for his marvellous grace.
John UK wrote: I can only put it down to the grace of God, longsuffering, and a hope that something I say will bless them, and make them think a bit more seriously about what they've been brainwashed with.
Good for you and I mean that. I always do that with personal emails, but perhaps I should extend that to SA posts. The only negative is the space and format are not sufficient to debate any issue, so it is really hard.
But, good for you for trying!
Off to mow the grass! Do they have grass in Wales? We have lots in Clearwater Florida and lots of "sun". Eat your heart out.
Frank wrote: As an aside how can you argue with these folks when they aren't honest in their arguments?
I can only put it down to the grace of God, longsuffering, and a hope that something I say will bless them, and make them think a bit more seriously about what they've been brainwashed with.
John UK wrote: Ah, you may just have it there, Frank. Romish Protestants eh? With their own Protestant Popes and Bulls? Infallible and inerrant doctrines, even when formulated by mere men who were sinners just like me? I tell you what, ol' bro. Genuine fellowship can be felt in the spirit, and is most beneficial and edifying.
Yes, I think I am correct; even if they don't know it they are following Rome's path. Remember the term roman/protestant and it will help you to at least understand their thought processes. As an aside how can you argue with these folks when they aren't honest in their arguments? I never even implied any of the below things that they want me to answer, so why should I.
I see you think the Reformers, Puritans and Covenanters were a bunch of liars too??? (I didn't say or imply this; I did imply they were mere men)
Putting yourself above the 16th century Christians you are declaring that; You can read the Bible - They can't. (I didn't say or imply this, I did imply they were mere men)
Thus you also are implying God is incompetent and ineffectual in history. ( I certainly never would say or imply this)
common sense wrote: 1. Your short term memory is extremely short isn't it John. 2. Why not read your own posts below to find your errors. 3. John posted below quote, "he will be assisted by those who regard the Bible more than the writings of men, or solemn leagues, covenants, and so forth." 10/4/12 6:28AM 4. Thus you have arrogantly opposed yourself and posting accomplices against the writers of covenants creeds and standards of Reformed history.
1. Incorrect. 2. Why not try to prove your case, instead of making vague accusations? 3. The men I referred to were those who determined "sola scriptura". And now you want to destroy their grand foundation and return to Romish principles? 4. On the contrary. As you full well know, the standard I embrace as being nearest to what God has taught me from the scriptures is the 1689 Baptist Confession. Is not this a "Reformed Standard" which other brethren like Ingleesi embraced and taught, and IS still being taught at the Met Tab in Ingleesi's Old Church in London by the present pastor Dr Peter Masters?
And you reckon I need God's mercy for having such an evil heart?
You don't even count me as regenerate.
88
There are a total of 127 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
