Monday, June 11, 2007

What Jesus Taught About the Law

This will not be a totally comprehensive post about what Jesus teaches about the Law, but it will give us a good idea what he taught about the Law as recorded in the gospel of Matthew.

I wanted to bring this topic back over to my blog and share "where I've been" this morning and what I have been discussing with Deb over at her blog.

It all started with Mark's post over at Chester Street. If you scroll down in the comment section, Deb asked me:

Christine, then why don't you explain what these scriptures mean. I would love to know your interpretation, but then again, Christians like yourself distort them to fit their bigotry of the world.

I doubt you'll ever convince anyone otherwise after reading the old law and that homosexuality isn't a sin. Really.

She asked the same question at my blog here, and the conversation continued here as well.

If you read through the comments in each comment thread, you will notice that I have continually answered her questions with Scripture verses to back them up.

Either she is away from her blog at the moment, or, she has refused to post my latest comment. Because of this, I have decided to post my comment here:


I want fellow Christians to correct and/or admonish me when what I share is not Biblically accurate. I welcome that wholeheartedly! So, please tell me where I have twisted Scripture?

Our argument here is not just about homosexuality. It is about a much larger topic. It is ultimately about what Jesus teaches concerning the Law. Since you do not like my choice of Scripture verses on this issue, I will share some endnotes from my NIV Study Bible on Matthew 5:17-20.

One extra thing I'd like to mention. In Matthew 5:17-18, notice that Jesus himself states:

"...until heaven and earth disappear (pass away in the NKJV), not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (NIV)

You must ask yourself, when will the current heaven and earth disappear? We are told this in Revelation 21:1 -

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Therefore, the Law is in effect until this event happens at Jesus' second coming.

Here's the NIV Study Bible notes:

5:17 God's moral and ceremonial laws were given to help people love God with all their hearts and minds. Thoughout Israel's history, however, these laws had been often misquoted and misapplied. By Jesus' time, religious leaders had turned the laws into a confusing mass of rules. When Jesus talked about a new way to understands God's law, he was actually trying to bring people back to its original purpose. Jesus did not speak against the law itself, but against the abuses and excesses to which it had been subjected (See John 1:17).

5:17-20 If Jesus did not come to abolish the law, does that mean all the Old Testament laws still apply to us today? In the OT, there were three categories of law: ceremonial, civil, and moral.

(1) The ceremonial law related specifically to Israel's worship (see Leviticus 1:2, 3 for example). Its primary purpose was to point forward to Jesus Christ; these laws, therefore, were no longer necessary after Jesus' death and resurrection. While we are no longer bound by ceremonial laws, the principles behind them - to worship and love a holy God - still apply. Jesus was often accused by the Pharisees of violating ceremonial law.

(2) The civil law applied to daily living in Israel (see Deuteronomy 24:10, 11, for example). Because modern society and culture are so radically different from that time and setting, all of these buidelines cannot be followed specifically. But the principles behind the commands are timeless and should guide our conduct. Jesus demonstrated these principles by example.

(3) The moral law (such as the Ten Commandments) is the direct command of God, and it requires strict obedience (see Exodus 20:13, for example). The moral law reveals the nature and will of God, and it still applies today. Jesus obeyed the moral law completely.

Verse 20 often confuses people. Here is the NIV Study Bible explanation:

Matthew 5:20 - For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Notes: The Pharisees were exacting and scrupulous in their attempts to follow their laws. So how could Jesus reasonably call us to a greater righteousness than theirs? The Pharisees' weakness was that they were content to obey the laws outwardly without allowing God to change their hearts (or attitudes). Jesus was saying, therefore, that the quality of our goodness should be greater than that of the Pharisess. They looked pious, but they were far from the kingdom of God. God judges our hearts as well as our deeds, for it is in the heart that our real allegiance lies. Be just as concerned about your attitudes that people don't see as about your actions that are seen by all.

Jesus was saying that his listeners heeded a different kind of righteousness altogether (love and obedience), not just a more intense version of the Pharisees' righteousness (legal compliance). Our righteousness must

(1) come from what God does in us, not what we can do by ourselves,
(2) be God-centered, not self-centered,
(3) be based on reverence for God, not approval from people, and
(4) go beyond keeping the law to living by the principles behind the law.


ebsfwan said...

If this is true then all the 'inconvenient laws' regarding slavery, shellfish, divorce, lack of rights for women etc. also apply.

You cannot pick and choose.

P.S. I have no problem with you posting religious things on my blog as I do it as well.

Christinewjc said...

Deciding to eat or not eat shellfish has nothing to do with the moral law.

This is why I posted the difference between ceremonial, civil, and moral laws.

Slavery, women's rights and the subject of divorce would come under the broader heading of a civil law. They also would be related to the morality at the time.

For example, it was given to Moses that divorce should be allowed because of the sin of adultery. That is a civil law decision based on a moral (or, more accurately in this case immoral act).

In actuality, the Scriptures reveal that God hates divorce. But being sinful people, we find that millions often do divorce for petty reasons.

Yet, divorce being allowed because of infidelity shows us several things; one being that God desires for us to have one mate for a lifetime. Marriage is defined as one man and one woman, so he desires for us to be heterosexual. No other type of sexual union is described in
God's Word as a positive, healthy, sanctified, or holy union.

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

The moral law in this area has not changed. These verses are both in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. It is, therefore, God's ideal that a man marry one woman so that "they two shall be one flesh."

God obviously celebrates and sanctifies that "one flesh" act.

We should also take his admonition against sexual perversion very seriously.

Ebsfwan, it is you who should not pick and choose what to obey, or not obey from God's Word.

P.S. OK good. Glad to hear that!

limpy99 said...

Christine, I assume that your point of view is that the Biblical verses against homosexuality should apply as law here in the US. If I'm wrong, of course say so. In fact, please say so. But if not, how do you separate your point of view from that of any fundamentalist religious group that demands their religious viewpoints be enforced as law for all society?

You have to recognize that many people in the US, prbably most when it comes right down to that, do not agree with your point of view on homosexuality, and darn few with the Bible's views on shellfish. Moreover, the US i founded on a Constitution that allows for relgious freedom, and that freedom includes the freedom NOT to be religious.

I guess I'm just trying to get some clarity here. If you're arguing that your religious viewpoints should be the law, I'd have to disagree with you, and I'd also have a hard time separating your stance from the stance of an Islamic radical arguing that Shaaria law should hold sway over Pakistan or wherever.

~Deb said...


This is not the first thing you've lied about.

I posted your comment up on my blog and RESPONDED to it.

Here's my response to the comment you left for me:

"Hi again Christine!

When you jotted down, The Pharisee’s weakness was that they were content to obey the laws outwardly without allowing God to change their hearts (or attitudes) and that Jesus was saying, therefore, that the quality of our goodness should be greater than that of the Pharisees.

This is something we agree upon. When Jesus saved the sinful woman just by faith alone, seen in Luke 7:36-50, she shown him love, just by her faith. The Pharisee failed to do this. He thought that just because he would follow the law to the full extent and have absolutely no mercy on anyone, including the sinful woman, that he would be saved himself. But on the contrary, the sinful woman was saved only by her faith, and not by keeping the law.

You said to be concerned about my attitudes and actions. The only concerns that I have with my attitudes and actions are trying to not hurt people with vicious words or tear someone’s spirit down. I would never tell someone they’re going to hell, because I refuse to play the role of God, as fundamentalist and some other Christians love to do. I try to edify and encourage people to come to God. How is that a bad thing?

You said that the moral law, such as the Ten Commandments is a direct command of God. I totally agree with you. Newsflash Christine, homosexuality didn’t make it on the big top Ten Commandments.

Verse 20 of Matthew doesn’t confuse me. What it means to me is, to be more loving, more faithful, instead of obeying every single law, because we are all sinners. The Pharisees were concerned with keeping the law so much, that they failed to act in love.

I will tell you that we believe in similar things, however there are gray areas within the bible that has to be interpreted by God, into your heart. Who am I going to believe----you or God? I have been blessed by the Holy Spirit and have had an incredible experience, which led me to write. It wasn’t from gay theology. I never knew such a thing until I started writing. It’s about my relationship with God, and what God has told ME. So, that’s why I’m so adamant about the issue of homosexuality and religion. Too many people are sending believers away, simply because they have fallen in love with someone of the same gender. It’s not fair. It’s actually a huge sin to turn someone away from God. They instill fear, guilt, and shame on these beautiful people (the ones I know), who are just living their lives as loving people.

Don’t get me wrong, Christine, there are promiscuous homosexuals who only go after the sexual aspect of it, but that also applies to heterosexuals as well, does it not?

My whole point is, God knows our heart. He knows our motives and what’s meant for us in this lifetime. A relationship with God goes WAY beyond the bible, however, having deep knowledge of the bible, and better yet, a deeper understanding of what the verses mean are significant!
Try to edify and encourage, instead of condemning. You’re not correcting someone by telling them that homosexuality is a sin, when in my belief, it’s not.

I’m repentant every single day, because every single day I am sinning----beyond your thought of sinning as a homosexual, because I don’t believe that’s a sin in God’s eyes.

I sin in other ways, and my repentance with the Lord is personal. I’m no better than anyone. I’m human. I love God. God forgives me on a daily basis, and forgives anyone who has a sincere and loving heart for Him.

My faith and my beliefs on this certain issue are so CERTAIN, that it makes me overwhelmingly happy to spread the news! HE has driven me to write books, write in this blog, and share the gift of happiness and love to each person who walks my path. I have a mission- to bring people closer to God. I can’t force feed them, but I can share with them…out of love.

Thank you again, for taking the time out to write back. Enjoy your day and I hope that you can kind of see where I’m coming from. God has spoken to me. I listen to him…not people.

Thanks Christine, and God bless!"

June 11, 2007

You can view it all here...

You simply cherry pick your scriptures to condemn homosexuality.

If homosexuality is a sin, then so is eating shellfish--it has everything to do with the law. Read Leviticus a bit more. That's the only place in the bible where it is considered a sin.

All else refers to promiscuity. A little more education and depth of the bible scriptures would be refreshing to see on this blog.

God bless!

Christinewjc said...


I don't expect that the moral law of Moses and the prophets would be very popular in this post-modern, secular society. And, I wasn't posting this for that purpose.

The issue at hand is between Deb, (who self-identifies as a lesbian and follows a "gay" Christian type of theology that proclaims that homosexual behavior is not sin) and several Bible-based Christians who are attempting to show her where she has (either purposely or inadvertently) twisted the meaning of the Scriptures to support her own brand of gay theology. She claims that the Bible does not call it sin, either. But her theology goes beyond just the subject of that one sin. She also claims that because of Jesus' sacrifice at the cross, the Law has been abolished.

Jesus himself said that was not true! Note this verse:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

The difference between the words "destroy" (or, abolish); and "fulfil" in a comment I posted at Deb's blog. If you are interested in reading it, I have re-posted it here:



1. To bring into actuality; effect: fulfilled their promises.
2. To carry out (an order, for example).
3. To measure up to; satisfy. See Synonyms at perform, satisfy.
4. To bring to an end; complete.

Notice that the meaning in #4 does say "to bring to an end; complete." However, the admonition that Jesus said he did not come to "destroy (or abolish) the law"
would negate that particular meaning in the verse.


1. To ruin completely; spoil: The ancient manuscripts were destroyed by fire.
2. To tear down or break up; demolish. See Synonyms at ruin.
3. To do away with; put an end to: "In crowded populations, poverty destroys the
possibility of cleanliness" (George Bernard Shaw).
4. To kill: destroy a rabid dog.
5. To subdue or defeat completely; crush: The rebel forces were destroyed in battle.
6. To render useless or ineffective: destroyed the testimony of the prosecution's chief witness.


1. To do away with; annul.
2. To destroy completely.

(Note: All definitions from American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source)

The Law is actively being used today, as it was in biblical times, to bring all people to repentance. It has it's important place in Christianity today, as it
always has in the past.

These verses clearly tell us that we are not to purposely sin against God once freed from the punishment of sin through Jesus Christ.

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said,
Thou shalt not covet.

Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by
the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

1Cr 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make [them] the members of an harlot? God forbid.

Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Gal 3:21 [Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should
have been by the law.

Gal 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

Jesus told us that he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (something that none of us could ever do); not abolish the Law.
We are no longer captive to the punishment for our sins because we are unable to keep the Law in our own flesh. That is why Jesus died for our sins and took the
punishment that each one of us deserved because:

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

God the Father looks at Christ's sacrifice for our sakes and is satisfied.

Christ paid the penalty of death for us all. Those who repent and believe are saved. Those who don't are "already condemned" because their sin remains on their own souls.

The verses that I have already shared about continuing in the sins of the flesh (and God forbid) inform us that the Law hasn't been abolished, just fulfilled by
Christ. Consider this.

Are non-believers still under the Law?

(This is the second time I have asked you this question.)

As believers, we are to keep the Commandments as a sign that we are no longer our own, but belong to Jesus. Jesus said, "If you love me keep my commandments."

It is a sign of love and devotion to no longer indulge in the sins of the past because we are "new creations in Christ." This doesn't mean that we can't ever sin again (that would be robotic and eliminate our free will choices), or won't ever sin again, but it means that we don't want to wilfully and intentionally
sin again because it grieves the Holy Spirit of God (and, additionally, it is felt as guilt within our own hearts, too) and is anathema to Christ's request to
us "if you love me, keep my commandments."

This is the basis of our disagreement with each other. But, it's not a trivial matter (perhaps it might be to non-believers). Genuine conversion and the place where one's soul will spend eternity are at stake.

Deb wants to tell those who practice homosexual sex that they can go right on doing so after becoming a Christian because in her eyes and opinion, it's not sin.

God's Word says otherwise.

Of course, non-Christians don't even care about this. They would not see (or care) that this error is currently out there being preached through deceptive philosophy morphed into the "gay" theology movement. There are many links I could provide if you are interested.

Christian's don't force people to accept Christ as Savior and Lord. All we can do is share the gospel and the rest is up to the Holy Spirit of God. However, when a person claims to be a Christian and preaches "another gospel" such as the gay theology movement, that is when we must speak up and counter such heresy that leads to apostasy.

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Colossians 2:8

The eyes of the Lord move to and fro throughout the earth to show Himself strong to those whose hearts are fully committed to Him. 2 Chronicles 16:9

In this day and age, it's not a popular venture.

Christinewjc said...

Deb wrote:

"This is not the first thing you've lied about."

Um...I guess you missed the first part of this sentence?

Either she is away from her blog at the moment, or, she has refused to post my latest comment.

I've been away from my blog all day, so I know that happens from time to time.

It seems like you'd rather just call me a "liar" than continue to dialogue in a civil manner.

That's a shame...

ebsfwan said...

Good to see Limpy back!

I think that the Bible is quite clear on homosexuality. It condemns it.

Having said that, the Bible is no longer regarded as authoratative on this issue by many people, in a manner similar to the way we view slavery today. The Bible is definitely not considered as authorative on that issue is it Christine?

Luke Johnson makes a better argument here:
"Our situation vis-à-vis the authority of Scripture is not unlike that of abolitionists in nineteenth-century America. During the 1850s, arguments raged over the morality of slave-holding, and the exegesis of Scripture played a key role in those debates. The exegetical battles were one-sided: all abolitionists could point to was Galatians 3:28 and the Letter of Philemon, while slave owners had the rest of the Old and New Testaments, which gave every indication that slaveholding was a legitimate, indeed God-ordained social arrangement, one to which neither Moses nor Jesus nor Paul raised a fundamental objection. So how is it that now, in the early twenty-first century, the authority of the scriptural texts on slavery and the arguments made on their basis appear to all of us, without exception, as completely beside the point and deeply wrong?"

Christine - I can guarantee you that within twenty years homosexuality will be accepted and considered as morally neutral by most Americans. Most Americans under 30 already believe this.

~Deb said...

Awe, do I detect a little anger from Christine?

Keep puking up scripture that means absolutely nothing to you, due to your unloving nature.

Now that's a shame.

Mark said...

Christine - I can guarantee you that within twenty years homosexuality will be accepted and considered as morally neutral by most Americans. Most Americans under 30 already believe this.

ebsfwan, no offense but your full of shit, err I mean crap. Most Americans have already proved you wrong, at the ballot box, not the New York Times op ed page. The age group you mention,most still on the nipple and out numbered. :)

Christinewjc said...

The Lord is so good!

He knows that when bitter enemies come and attempt to slander, we need to be lifted up by our Christian brothers and sisters.

I have many such brothers and sisters who frequent this blog!

Stephen B.
Kingdom Advancer

and others who may visit occasionally.

Thank you my friends! Your love and support means to much to me!

I also have a brother in Christ who doesn't blog, but often sends me encouraging emails at just the right moment! It may be regarded as uncanny by some, but I see it as a Godsend.

The Holy Spirit of God works within the hearts of believers for many purposes. This email, beautifully set in prose and sent by my friend and brother in Christ, Rocky, both encouraged me and uplifted me. It serves as a light in the darkness!

It was also the perfect response, (when I literally didn't know what to say!) that points out how and why those who own hardened hearts that reject God obviously need to be brokened before they can receive a new heart intent upon serving Him rather than their fleshly desires.

Hard Hearts Need to be Broken

I saw crumbs falling from the table of God

Many were like hungry dogs ravenously devouring these crumbs

Then I saw that each dog was a man I knew

And that each crumb was something that had fallen into this world

Each crumb was a desire of this world

These desires where endless appetites, a hunger and thirst that could never be quenched

I looked and I saw some crumbs in my own hands

The Lord then said to me, ‘put those down son and come eat at my table’

I answered, ‘what about these, will they not come too’?

The Lord answered, ‘these are those of whom it is written,
‘you have forsaken me the spring of living waters

You have dug your own cistern which can not hold water’

I pondered the meaning of this and then the Lord continued,
‘these are like dogs at the children’s table

Although they eat, they are never satisfied

The crumbs from my table whet their appetites

But they never come to the table to eat with me

They are always discontented and dissatisfied

Their hearts are bitter and calloused

Their desires weary and fatigue them

They are like restless and discontented children

Ever demanding this or that but are never contented

They do not know the secret to contentment

Their desires wound them and disturb them

Like wind blowing across open waters brings the sea to a rage

Their hearts are troubled and easily become enraged

This is their bitterness and what hardens their hearts’

Then I saw my heart on a great anvil

The Lord brought down a great hammer and struck it with a mighty blow

My heart was broken and I wept bitterly

The tears were the bitterness of my heart being poured out

Then as I looked again the Lord had replaced my heart with a new heart

A hearing heart, a heart of flesh

And He said, ‘If only they would be broken

Hard hearts need to be broken

Then they would hear, and turn and I would heal them

Then they would become land that drinks in the water

That produces a crop useful to me’

Thanks Rocky, I needed that!
God bless in Christ,

Mark said...

You have a true kindness and tender approach than I will ever have. I see the dogs return and I can't help but comment.

They seek no new anything. They are quite content. Limpy and ebsfwan are not idiots, they are fools that ask foolish questions because their motives are transparent. For instance, limpy ole boy has a problem understanding that not one nation in all of history has NOT formed its govt and laws around religious principles. Furthermore, No where have you ever implied the Govt and Church should be one. Yet they keep reaching up their butts pulling out the same old crap questions as if they need some clarity. BS!

If I may, ebsfwan ask
the Bible is no longer regarded as authoratative on this issue by many people, in a manner similar to the way we view slavery today. The Bible is definitely not considered as authorative on that issue is it Christine?

Let me clear it up for you ebs. The Bible never endorced slavery. It's been explained to you countless times. Just say you reject it. say outloud you reject the fact the Bible and God have never endorsed slavery! Then be done with it. k?

Even Christ refused to shed more Light on those whom He knew would reject Him. An act of mercy in my opinion!

limpy99 said...

"limpy ole boy has a problem understanding that not one nation in all of history has NOT formed its govt and laws around religious principles."

Ummm, Soviet Union? China? Japan post WWII? Switzerland? England? Canada? Turkey? Belgium?I can keep going if you'd like. I can also provide you a map to find some of these countries if you're stuck. Here are some countries that do or did form their governments around religous principles.

Nazi Germany
North Korea, to the extent that the nut case in charge is worshipped as a diety
Japan, pre-WWII
Taliban Afghanistan

Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than open one's mouth and prove it Mark.

Deb, I've often disagreed with Christine here, but I have never known her to lie.

Mark said...

Ummm, Soviet Union? China? Japan post WWII? Switzerland? England? Canada? Turkey? Belgium?

Ummm, are you saying the laws governing these nations have no religious based principles? I guess the obvious question would be, What is your defintion or understanding of religious principles?

My understanding is that they are principles based on cause and effect. "In the begining God created Man". The desired or undesired cause along with the effect each would have. The Bible is filled with such principles and no man need be 'religious' to understand nor appreciate the benefits of such in any society. Hence your little list of countries limpy. The book of Hebrew writer stated that “every house is built by someone; but he that built all things is God” (3:4). Even as you stated, a false diety or even a nut can be worshipped. Again, not one nation in all of history has NOT formed its govt and laws around religious principles.

Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than open one's mouth and prove it Limpy ole boy. Truth be told, I never thought you were a fool, just a wise ass.

Mark said...

Nazi Germany
North Korea, to the extent that the nut case in charge is worshipped as a diety
Japan, pre-WWII
Taliban Afghanistan

I think what you are trying to illustrate by this list limppy ole boy, are nations where the Govt and Church got "Married". When ever that happens, the church is always made the whore. I don't ever advocate such a marriage, ever!

Christinewjc said...

Ebsfwan wrote:

"Christine - I can guarantee you that within twenty years homosexuality will be accepted and considered as morally neutral by most Americans. Most Americans under 30 already believe this."

You are probably correct about that. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. In fact, it is prophesied in the Bible that the closer we get to the end times, the easier it will be for people not born again in Jesus Christ to be deceived.
With her obvious lack of Jesus' admonition to Test the spirits, she is thus guilty of the same heresy leading to apostasy that is currently going on in many of the emergent church movements, (including the false doctrine of Queer Theology). People like her will thus be less likely, willing, and able, to discern the truth of God's Word from the error of worldly views.

According to Deb's latest blogpost, she is now on vacation. I hope that when she returns, she will click on that link above and read it.

Much of what she professes about "hearing from God" (that has been pointed out to her is directly opposed to Scripture) is revealed for what it really is...her own mind speaking to herself and thus validating what she wants to believe.

Christinewjc said...

Limpy wrote:

"Deb, I've often disagreed with Christine here, but I have never known her to lie."

Thank you so much for saying that Limpy! It means a lot to me.

Yes. We do disagree on many things. But it is certainly refreshing to read that you don't think I'm deliberately lying.

I take what I write very seriously. I want to be Biblically accurate. My thoughts, feelings, emotions and writing about the gospel must be discerned through God's Word, not my own. It should line up with Scripture. If it doesn't, then another Christian brother or sister should call me on it. I want them to!

But Deb is another story. Her "gay theology" discernment is, unfortunately, based on her own thoughts, feelings, emotions and writings! They do not allow Scripture to reveal the truth.

As the post link (in comment to ebsfwan) says:

The Word must have its correct interpretation or one finds himself wandering from the original intent of the author which would put them outside the truthfulness of the Scriptures. They would then be believing in a false concept of the Word which God never intended. This is something the Holy Spirit cannot honor, validate, or communicate. God does still speak today, but it certainly is not new doctrine.

Christinewjc said...


Thanks for your encouraging words and for pointing out a true fact when you wrote:

"Even Christ refused to shed more Light on those whom He knew would reject Him. An act of mercy in my opinion!"

That's a great point that I sometimes forget. I guess that I don't give up on even the obvious skeptics and non-believers because I still want to "give everyone an answer for the hope that is within you (me)." Our only hope in this world is the Gospel of Christ.

None of us do the task of the "Great Commission" perfectly. All we can do is plant those seeds and pray.

God bless you my brother!

limpy99 said...

Mark, you raise a fair point. Your explanation of your view of religious principles and what they are certainly expands on your blanket statement. In that sense, the statement could even be correct, since all governments, at least in theory, are formed for the benefit of the entire population, then yes, they are formed on a coinciding religous principle. My point in listing several countries is that there are, of course, many countries that do not cite any particualr religion as their foundation, but you're right that so long as they claim to be formed with the good of their population in mind, they have that in common with many religions.

That leads to a deeper point of what comes first, laws or religion. Personally, I think religion comes into play, (in the case of law), as sort of an ultimate enforcer of the laws necessary to keeping humnas living together in group settings, which we need to do but really aren't that good at. I suspect you would argue that laws are derived from God and therefore that religion precedes laws. Probably the source of an interesting discussion, although time and space preclude me from more here.

Good point though.