Church in Ireland bans gay couples from membership
The Presbyterian Church in Ireland has adopted a new policy meaning anyone in a gay relationship cannot be a full member and children of same-sex couples cannot be baptised.
It comes after The Church in Ireland, which has 220,000 members across Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, cut ties with its Presbyterian sister, the Church of Scotland, over its more liberal attitude to sexuality.
GOD bans Sodom and Gomorrah citizens from church membership.
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another;"
V28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind"
--http://tinyurl.com/yc8sj2v3 ( Are evangelicals today more devoted to Trump and the Republicans than the gospel?)[/
â€śI have dear relatives who are Protestant and say they voted for Trump so they could get Vice President Mike Pence.
"These pious souls . . . reasoned that Pence will learn from his tenure and enhance his appeal as a future presidential candidate.
Either way, they deem Pence far more likely to advance a faith-friendly . . . Evangelicals obviously concur.
As much as racism raised its ugly head during the campaign, the Trump-Pence ticket's shrewd playing of the "God card" proved pivotal.â€ť Sarah S. Williams, Santa Barbara
Something else is proving pivotal. That is far more people see â€śevangelicalsâ€ť as hypocritical now because of their position in the Charlottesville incident. They did not speak out! So now, many have left the church. Others donâ€™t want to hear the Gospel.
Penny, so when was it that you pointed out in front of a thousand people that and this is what it only needs to be said as far as I'm concerned, " Christ, first, last, - always âť—" my statement and most other people's of course longer than that at their baptism--that is what a baptism is for Baptists a public profession of being Christian. Smaller groups knew about it before then. Of course now for some--
Mark Labberton, President of Fuller Seminary wrote: ..... The word "evangelical" has morphed from being commonly used to describe a set of theological and spiritual commitments into a passionately defended, theo-political brand. Worse, that brand has become synonymous with social arrogance, ignorance and prejudice â€” all antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Balmer's claims, [See (â€śUnder Trump, evangelicals show their true racist colors,â€ť ]while not new, are deservedly painful for millions of white evangelicals who are deeply offended by racism, repelled by Trump, and who vocally deny the false theo-political brand that co-opts the faith we hold dear.
You will see various theologians from Reformed, Lutheran and Anglican backgrounds point out that infant baptism is not in the Bible In fact it is somewhat amusing that the children in the family of queers are prevented from practicing an anti-biblical act, while their own children and the Church of Ireland are put through a meaningless ritual.
Penny, I went through three baptisms being a Methodist being baptized as infant.
The second one well something of a confirmation as joining the Methodist Club.
Now this weighed on my conscience and I talked it over with the church elders and I was baptized not only by being dunked, which is fine but the other types of baptism are just as valid, but most importantly publicly identifying my faith in Christđź‘Ť the first two baptisms weren't valid as I saw it, but I would say for almost all people, one baptism should do it. Unless of course you were baptized as an infant which is meaningless.
Jim, I find it odd that you would attack this church's mode of baptism simply to stir up strife and debate where neither is warranted. It seems like you have gone after the minor point to take away emphasis from the major point of the story. Debate the mode of baptism offline, sir.
It is a pleasure to see this denomination standing strong, especially in light of the extreme pressure that Northern Ireland is likely to encounter to follow the rest of Europe and even the rest of the island. May their example encourage the rest of us to stand strong as well. Meanwhile, let us endeavor to pray for these brothers and sisters that their testimony would remain bright, that all their infants' baptisms would become effective in true faith in Christ, and that many woukd turn from sin to Christ because of their witness.
"Circumcision & Baptism, Infant Baptism or Household Baptisms Are Taught In the Bible" Greg Price. https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=130615449
"We believe that the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized, the Lord having made it both their privilege and their duty to consecrate their offspring to him in the use of this ordinance. In defence and confirmation of this belief, the most of what we desire to say may be appropriately arranged under three distinct arguments, each having force in itself, and when combined, forming an arch that cannot be broken or swept away by our opponents. They are not new indeed, but are not the less worthy of our regard on that account. To consider how these ancient pillars stand, and how they are related together in the temple of truth, will reassure those who already agree with us in the general view of the subject, and perhaps tend to convince those from whom we differ." (Charles Hodge) http://www.westminsterconfession.org/worship/the-subjects-of-baptism.php
John MacArthur does an excellent job of explaining why Believers baptism is the only actual baptism that countsâť—đź‘Ť
John Macarthur wrote: ...You say, â€śWell, is it a big issue?â€ť
Itâ€™s a huge issue, and Iâ€™m going to show you why. Iâ€™m going to give you five reasons why we must reject infant baptism, five reasons. Hereâ€™s the first one and this would be enough, infant baptism is not in the Scripture. Infant baptism is not in the Scripture. Scripture nowhere advocates or records any such thing as the baptism of an infant. [ ] It is therefore impossible to support infant baptism from the Bible. It is not in the Bible. Thereâ€™s not an incident of it, thereâ€™s not a mandate, thereâ€™s not a call for it, thereâ€™s not a description of it. It doesnâ€™t appear. In fact, if you go back in history, and Iâ€™m going to do that a little bit with you, you will find that historians have affirmed this fact. Theological leaders in generations past have affirmed this truth....
Lynda O wrote: ...the Reformers did reform ecclesiology. [ ] They departed from the Catholic church system. Again how ridiculous a claim. Leaving one church-state system, and then setting up a new (Protestant) church with the same ecclesiastical model of a church-state (even continuing infant baptism and keeping the government and church firmly together), is not reforming ecclesiology....