Seattle man in women's locker room cites gender rule
Seattle Parks and Recreation is facing a first-of-a-kind challenge to gender bathroom rules. A man undressed in a women's locker room, citing a new state rule that allows people to choose a bathroom based on gender identity.
It was a busy time at Evans Pool around 5:30pm Monday February 8. The pool was open for lap swim. According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, a man wearing board shorts entered the women's locker room and took off his shirt. Women alerted staff, who told the man to leave, but he said "the law has changed and I have a right to be here."
"Really bizarre," MaryAnne Sato said. "I can't imagine why they would want to do that anyway!"...
Christian wrote: May the Lord bless your walk with Him
Thanks. True, how much we need God's blessing in our personal walk with Him! May we be prevented from defending people before truth, while caring for each other. May â€˜the God of peace â€¦ be with youâ€™ Ph 4:9
Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen
Ps. The outline of this sermon has been a personal blessing. May it be yours also. God bless http://www.pentictonfpc.org/?p=1062#comment-244591
B. McCausland wrote: Thanks for your kindness. It is a pity mutual understanding is missed, as it is a pleasure to fellowship with sound-minded Christians for the purpose of mutually adding to our faith. May we ever be prevented from the exclusive spirit displayed in Is 66:5 Every blessing
Thank you for your gracious response. Apologies accepted and given again on my part. In truth, it is very difficult to convey meaning and tone in such a small space. We do our best but fail at times.
Thanks for your apologies, but no offence taken anyway. Sorry if matters are not sufficiently comprehended. About the issue of 'bearing false witness', this was stated because of your accusation of me labeling Murray as a Neo-Calvinist. This was never stated on my part; rather yourself and others have deduced this by misinterpretation of my remark: "Murray *seems to take the approach* of the Neo Calvinists' camp".
After repeated explanations from my part the accusation unfairly remains. Not every person dabbing with medicine is a doctor. In the same way, not everybody bordering Neo-Calvinist trends, or partaking of some of its tendencies, should be declared a Neo-Calvinist.
My apologies if you felt offended by any of my remarks, they are not intentional; the personal intent is never to insult, but to be fair, though firm about truth following the advice of 1 Pe 2:23, 19&20
However, better is the end of the matter than the beginning we read. Thanks for your kindness. It is a pity mutual understanding is missed, as it is a pleasure to fellowship with sound-minded Christians for the purpose of mutually adding to our faith. May we ever be prevented from the exclusive spirit displayed in Is 66:5 Every blessing
Clearly, we do not understand one another. In spoken English, 'if' as you used it is loaded with assumption. Now if I have understood you correctly you are suggesting that I am bearing false witness against you. This is blatantly false and deeply offensive.
Your posts are very difficult to understand at times due to the way you structure sentences and your unique phraseology. So forgive me if they are misunderstood.
I am familiar with both the ministry of Chris Hand and Chamberlin and have listened to both sermons although they are not the final word on the subject. I am strictly conservative myself yet I have knowledge of the church Mr. Murray is from and can assure you that, though not as conservative in nature as I personally prefer they would not be considered Neo-Calvinist.
It has never been my intention to offend you but I can see now that debate with you is pretty pointless mainly because you don't understand what I am trying to say and vice-versa. I'm sure you don't mean to be offensive either so rather than be offended again by your rather cutting posts...I wish you well and though I have not borne false witness against you I apologise if that is what you understood.
Christian wrote: 1. unjust assumption over where a poster stands 2. bandy about the term Neo-Calvinist far too often when you seem to have little understanding of what the term stands for 3.you labelled Murray as Neo-Calvinist over one sermon.
1. Please, read carefully the wording of my post before making bland statements interpreting what you think it says. My statement started with the word *if*. We are not mind readers or know-all, so it was a suggestion established for the sake of granting you your choice in the issue discussed
2. Please, see if you agree with the understanding presented by Chris and Chamberlin before you brand me repeatedly with such accusation. Then we may be able to find out if we are on the same page or not, or if my understanding is not accurate on the issue.
3. Please, read my explanations again. Misrepresentation is as bearing false witness. Clarification has been made acknowledging how individuals display Neo-Calvinist tendencies in different shades and intensities, some skirting around, or borrowing from the trend, and this is what you, and others insistently choose to IGNORE.
US The statements were made as speaking about the Neo-Calvinist position in general, not derived from the sermon.
B. McCausland wrote: Sorry, the comments were offered in answer to your last remark. If you seem not to have problems with the trend, it is fine. One thing is clear: the Neo-Calvinist camp seems quite intolerant about conservatism. Just a thought Take care ___ You have completely misunderstood every thing I have said and you are far too quick to make unjust assumption over where a poster stands. I have a huge problem with Neo-Calvinism and I am conservative myself. The point is that you, bandy about the term Neo-Calvinist far too often when you seem to have little understanding of what the term stands for. Secondly, you labelled Murray as Neo-Calvinist over one sermon. This is unjust and harmful to the body of Christ. There are enough true Neo-Calvinists out there that you could have a go at without tarnishing those outside the neo camp.
QUOTE][AUTHOR]B. McCausland[/AUTHOR]. ___ US Sorry, nothing stated on my part about his sermon, only about his approach, the rest is all your doing. May God bless you[/QUOTE]oh, well seeing that you cited his sermon in your first post in which you referenced him (2/25/16 10:50 AM) One can only assume that you got your "insight" about his approach from the sermon. If Dr. Murray, "seems to take the approach of the Neo Calvinists' camp, who derive their notions from the general idea that for some religion comes based on personal preferences, human opinions, traditions, or doctrines and commandments of men contrary to the word. This they label as 'legalism'." then you should from the sermon be able to show from where you derive that statement. I have shown he clearly does not think conscience goes beyond the realm of the Word of God, which you say is your position. It seems as if you are commenting not on what Murray said, but on what Andrew Foster and Chris Hand said in their sermons.
Christian wrote: You seem to have gone off on a tangent
Sorry, the comments were offered in answer to your last remark. If you seem not to have problems with the trend, it is fine. One thing is clear: the Neo-Calvinist camp seems quite intolerant about conservatism. Just a thought Take care ___
MS Sorry for upsetting you. Neo-Calvinist trends are more common than we like to think. May the God of peace grant you peace.
US Sorry, nothing stated on my part about his sermon, only about his approach, the rest is all your doing. May God bless you
Lurker wrote: John, My question was based on the setup.... the conditions which existed 1500 years ago. How did God keep His promise for His remnant during those times without a bible, preachers or the millions of sermons, commentaries, systematic theology, etc. we have today? The answer as I see it.... He sent preachers to preach the gospel beginning with Paul. By hearing the gospel is how God wrote His laws on hearts of flesh. In the gospel resides all the righteousness of Christ fulfilling all the law of Moses. Nothing more can be added nor is needful.
That's interesting bro. How about if we say that the law is the reason for the gospel? A broken law demands justice, and all have broken the law, therefore all are condemned. I don't know if the gospel can be preached without preaching the law, and when people first hear the law with the enlightenment of the Spirit, it convicts them, sometimes most powerfully. But, as you say, righteousness without law is manifest in the gospel, through faith in Jesus Christ, for it was he who kept the law perfectly and without sin on our behalf.
The forest of course is one, but men have divided it up into plots by their additions.
My question was based on the setup.... the conditions which existed 1500 years ago. How did God keep His promise for His remnant during those times without a bible, preachers or the millions of sermons, commentaries, systematic theology, etc. we have today?
The answer as I see it.... He sent preachers to preach the gospel beginning with Paul. By hearing the gospel is how God wrote His laws on hearts of flesh. In the gospel resides all the righteousness of Christ fulfilling all the law of Moses. Nothing more can be added nor is needful.
But Paul did one more thing..... he warned of the things which can lead one to fall away from the simplicity of Christ. Summed up, he taught all to die daily to the old man.
My point is this. With a bible in hand it isn't possible to not fill our heads with all of God's teachings and I'd never suggest this is anything but good for those who love God. But how many of us have added to God's simple work of justification, sanctification and separation from worldly ways which worked perfectly 2,000 years ago? And that because we have filled up our minds with so much that God didn't command that we've lost sight of the forest for the trees?
Lurker, thanks bro for that mighty fine post, with which I agree mostly.
The fundamentals of what we're discussing is found obviously in: Deu 30:6, Jer 31:33, 32:40, Eze 11:19, 36:26-27, 2 Cor 3:3, Heb 8:10ff
There is also the OT command to write the law on their gates, also in Proverbs 7 about writing the law in their own hearts.
Now what a wonderful thing this is! That in the new covenant, the human heart (which is the cause of all problems) which is tainted throughout with sin, when a sinner is reborn and indwelt by the Spirit, the old heart is dealt with (a blow) and the divine nature is filling the new heart; thusly the sinner becomes a new creature in Christ Jesus, and filled with love both for God and his fellow man. This is a spiritual thing, worked by God, and reveals the new man to all around him, such that they say, "Whatever happened to him?"
You could call that the "simplicity that is in Christ".
So there is the foundation, brother. Are we good to go so far?
I would have answered your question, but I could not, because I did not understand it. Could you reword it for one who likes things a bit simpler?
John UK wrote: Lurker, you mentioned the new heart, the new mind, law of God written there at conversion. Very true bro. But you need to ask, "Is this all I need, and can it ever go faulty?" Scenario:
How about a more realistic scenario to make my point:
Roll the calendar back 1,500 years. The setting is Asia Minor. All the apostles have been dead for 400 + years. All the known biblical scrolls had been confiscated by the Holy Roman Empire.
Now I assume you'd agree God's promise to write His laws on new hearts commenced either at Pentecost or at Paul's calling. Whichever is not all that important to our conversation. I also assume you'd agree God has always had a faithful remnant even during the darkest of times.
So, how did God keep His promise to write His laws on hearts and if His promise alone wasn't sufficient (which I have a hard time comprehending anyone would even suggest)...... how did He add more to it to keep His remnant from falling away?
The problem as I see it, brother, is we live in an age where not only do we have the whole counsel of God but also libraries filled with the writings of self professed teachers of the word resulting in the loss of the "simplicity that is in Christ".
B Mc Even a cursory reading of your posts concerning Mr. Murray would give one an indication that you considered his 'approach' in his sermon as aligning with the neo-Calvinist movement...I bore no false witness in this matter. I have prayed for you, but will no longer continue in responding to any of your remarks for the sake of Gods glory and peace on the board.
" But there are many other areas, aren't there, where the human tradition is either not BASED ON THE BIBLE OR AGAINST WHAT IS IN THE BIBLE. We might call them our own prejudices or our own preferences
the human traditions that the Pharisaical amongst them are coming along and chaining on others and demanding obedience and compliance with their own personal preferences and desires
if it's not COMMANDED OR FORBIDDEN BY GOD'S WORD, the apostle's word is, "Break the chains."
BMcCausland, you are the only one stating, without proof from his sermon, that he is saying that our conscious does not need to be guided by the Word of God.
Maybe I missed it. Please show where he states, as you allege, that Christians can stray from the obeying the Bible. I read through your quotes and you never showed where he states in his sermon what you claim he believes.
B. McCausland wrote: Our conscience should be bound only by the Word of God, not by any fellow Christian, any preacher, 'divine', denomination, creed, or church affiliation. Neo-Calvinism leans heavenly on the idea of 'personal opinion' which varies from individual to individual, ethnical settings, or cultures. Conservatism leans on convictions made out from the strict teaching of the Word. This seems a safer ground of confidence. God has given teachers to the church and we do well to benefit from such a gift. Yet we should exercise Berean discernment. While doing so, often one seems less convinced by the ministry of some because of their lapsed sense on biblical separation. Andrew Foster's series on 'Separation' defines the issue using the Levitical teaching. http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=112909930303
You seem to have gone off on a tangent. I'm not disputing any of the above, although your understanding of Neo-Calvinism doesn't seem too thorough in all honesty. I take issue with terms like Neo-Calvinism being bandied about so easily and often without much cause. That is my point.
Christian wrote: 1. Neo-Calvinism .. broad and difficult to define 2. strict conservative norms
1. This has been admitted. However, people can be identified under the trend because of some basic tendencies displayed: in some with weak tones, while in others with strong emphasis. Chris Hand and Daniel Chamberlin independently, one in England the other in the USA, arrive to similar conclusions about this current trend.
2. Our conscience should be bound only by the Word of God, not by any fellow Christian, any preacher, 'divine', denomination, creed, or church affiliation. Neo-Calvinism leans heavenly on the idea of 'personal opinion' which varies from individual to individual, ethnical settings, or cultures. Conservatism leans on convictions made out from the strict teaching of the Word. This seems a safer ground of confidence.
God has given teachers to the church and we do well to benefit from such a gift. Yet we should exercise Berean discernment. While doing so, often one seems less convinced by the ministry of some because of their lapsed sense on biblical separation.
Andrew Foster's series on 'Separation' defines the issue using the Levitical teaching.
I think it's well worth debating this subject, with all needed respect, and particularly love of the brethren, always having a desire in our heart for blessing not cursing, hoping for good things to come from these exchanges.
Lurker, you mentioned the new heart, the new mind, law of God written there at conversion. Very true bro. But you need to ask, "Is this all I need, and can it ever go faulty?"
Scenario: A fairly new Christian walks into a church service, and the preacher is getting up into the pulpit. He announces his text: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world..."
The preacher begins to explain what the word "world" means, in context, and in great detail.
The new Christian walks out after ten minutes of this, saying, "Well I'll not have any of that. I've got a new mind and a new heart, and I don't need to be brought into bondage by listening to rules and regulations of men. After all, I don't need any advice or help, I've got the mind of Christ; everything I do is right and good, and if this church is anything to go by, they're all a bunch of legalists, seeking to trap me and take away my freedom in Christ Jesus."