/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I don't think Anderson knows marriage licenses didn't exist in pre-modern times

Anderson is firmly rooted in early 20th century American Tradition. He will perform any and all mental, logical, emotional, and biblical contortions to justify his traditions.

>>568665

Early 20th century Americans didn't believe queers are all hellbound reprobates

He's totally wrong. Sometimes it seem like he starts internet feuds with other Christian e-celebs just to generate traffic/Youtube views.

http://mercyseat.net/mscc/2015/10/07/marriage-licenses/

>>568673

As far as I know neither did any previous century's Americans or Christians believe that (in the sense that it's impossible to repent). Can anyone point to Christians prior to Anderson who interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 the way he interprets it?

catholics should agree with anderson on this one actually

The state has a right to be told who is marrying whom since it is a matter of state interest. They cannot morally or legitimately prevent marriage in general since it is a natural institution. By the same token the state has an obligation to enforce the terms of marriage in accord with natural law.

The real problem is trying to define marriage as a contract and basically sterilizing it of the elements that make it marriage.

It is the Lord who gives us the right to marry, and has given the laws to marriage. What business is it of the state?

>>568688

(((Civil marriage))) is sodomy.

Civil marriage and has to go and civil divorce with it.

Marriage is a church thing and a church thing only and it's eternal in nature, which cannot be divorced.

>>568680

>catholics should agree with anderson on this one actually

lol knew it.

>>568678

I have given this challenge before and they could not name a single person for any major denomination who claims that gays cannot repent. It is his own spiritual pride which leads him to such an errant conclusion.

>>568641

Read Romans 13. The governing body is ordained by God. If you rebel against the state you rebel against what God has established.

>>568718

>The governing body is ordained by God

Okay:

>And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

Luke 2:1

>7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Romans 13:7

>16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.

>17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

Mark 12

>8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts.

Haggai 2:8

Nothing belongs to Caesar. You make a choice. Is Caesar your king or is Jesus?

>>568721

>Jesus: pay your taxes

>Anon: what He meant was pay no taxes

>>568727

Okay so you do think that's what Jesus is saying in Mark 12? Fascinating.

>>568730

Render unto Caesar…

>>568732

…and what belongs to Caesar??

>>568733

Whose is this image and superscription?

>>568721

So the ministers of God have no authority at all because of this verse you're taking out of context from the prophecy in haggai 2? I'm sure you pay taxes that or 1 Timothy 5:8.

>>568738

Right but not the gold itself. See Haggai 2:8 in my post >>568721 get the context.

>>568740

No the ministers of God have all of the authority. That's my point. Pagans and non-believers do not.

>>568756

>And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

>He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

>Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

>Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

>>568757

yeah exactly Jesus is pointing out the absurdity of having to pay the temple tax to his own Father. THat's why the coin is collected from the mouth of the fish and not physically handed over by Jesus Himself. He performs a miracle and pays the tribute to his own temple..

which is different and if you pay attention, I'm destroying your narrative by quoting Luke 2:1 in the context of my post >>568721

>>568762

CAESAR is claiming that all the world should be taxed and paid to him rather than to God.

>>568762

>Jesus doesn't like the temple tax

>but He tells Peter to pay it anyway

<He meant don't pay your taxes!!!!

>>568756

Romans 13 says nothing about the rulers being Christian or not. Did you even bother to read Romans 13? It says the authorities that exist have been established by God. The only criteria is that the authority exists.

>>568766

>>568769

>Did you even bother to read Romans 13

Yes

>1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

>2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

>3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

>4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

<For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.

Therefore if they are a terror to good works, then they are not the rulers.

>>568766

Give it some thought.

>>568771

Honestly, that's a good point. Though I don't see what good work the American government is stopping us from performing. We can have the right to assemble ourselves together, and preach to every creature. What good works are they a terror to exactly?

>>568680

We do not through.

Marriage in catholicism have two forms: natural and sacramental. Natural marriage is any willful union of woman and man that is made publicly for sake of matrimonial duties. Sacramental marriage is natural mariage that was eleveted to sacrament by Christ to be sacramnent (i.e. mystery) of union of Him and His Bride. And thus it have to be made in prsesnce of churchman and be but monogamous and life-long.

Law both civil and canonical only recongizes that reality. Of course, law that is unjust (and no unnatural thing is just) is not law at all.

>>568756

>Right but not the gold itself

Mental gymnastics

>See Haggai 2:8

See Haggai 2:7 for context

<And I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with glory, says the Lord of hosts

The silver and gold of verse 8 are the treasures of verse 7. It's a statement of God's sovereignty, not that creatures don't own any money. Besides, Romans 13:6.

>>568771

>Therefore if they are a terror to good works, then they are not the rulers

He's talking about good works in general, not specifically Christian works. Though he is speaking properly of the ideal government, we cannot forget the present tense and lack of modality. There can be no doubt, he is speaking of Nero. So it is clear he says the purpose for which God created the institution of the state was to preserve order and uphold rights, which are destroyed and transgressed in anarchy. This is why we are to pay taxes, so the state can continue to hold society together. I don't think you realize what you are saying when you say "they are not the rulers". Because a proper state is of necessity for a functional society, when the state truly becomes a terror to good works and a promoter of evil, it becomes the obligation of every individual to resist the rulers and of the nation to undo them.

>>568706

Because the concept was so unthinkable no one even had to argue about it, everyone just knew. That's why the death penalty was accepted without question for sodomites, everyone knew they were worthy of death, so the idea of them entering a church was completely unthinkable. It would have been appalling to so much as bring up the subject of sodomy any further than is absolutely necessary, and only then to confirm they are worthy of death, as it says in Romans 1:32. See the commentary on English law for instance:

>IV. What has been here observed, especially with regard to the manner of proof, which ought to be more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity,–the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast; a crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved, and then as strictly and impartially punished. But it is an offence of so dark a nature, so easily charged, and the negative so difficult to be proved, that the accusation should be clearly made out; for if false, it deserves a punishment inferior only to that of the crime itself.

>I will not act so disagreeable a part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate, in this respect, the delicacy of our English law, which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named… Which leads me to add a word concerning its punishment.

>This the voice of nature and of reason and the express law of God determined to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance long before the Jewish dispensation by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven; so that this is a universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our antient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burned to death,(n) though Fleta(o) says they should be buried alive; either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the antient Goths.(p) But now the general punishment of all felonies is the same, namely, by hanging; and this offence was made felony without benefit of clergy

— Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

>>568796

>Because the concept was so unthinkable no one even had to argue about it, everyone just knew. That's why the death penalty was accepted without question for murderers, everyone knew they were worthy of death, so the idea of them entering a church was completely unthinkable. It would have been appalling to so much as bring up the subject of murder any further than is absolutely necessary, and only then to confirm they are worthy of death

>>568800

Do you think 30 years ago people were seriously debating sodomite marriage?

>>568805

Do you think this question seriously has any relevance whatsoever?

>>568806

No one thought things were going to get this bad.

No one even considered it, not even for a moment, that open sodomites would be engaging in church sunday school and adoption rights. They should be six feet under, man. Everyone knew this. As soon as the trial is over put them on the boxcars and send them to their graves.

>>568807

>No one even considered it, not even for a moment, that open sodomites would be engaging in church sunday school and adoption rights

How about repentant sodomites?

>>568807

Nobody thought fornication would be legalised, destigmatised and encouraged by much of society, but that absolutely no bearing on the ability of fornicators to repent.

>>568811

Romans 1:24-2:2.

Obligatory, in before someone posts a mistranslated 1 Corinthians verse.

>>568641

>A driver's license authorizes you to DRIVE your car. That is the activity being authorized by the civil government, therefore you are asking for permission to drive your car from the civil government.

A drivers licence isn't the government 'authorizing' you to drive your car. A drivers licence is the government authorizing you to drive on public roads (ie those owned by the government)

It might be different overseas but as far as I'm aware over here you don't need a licence to drive on private roadways* / your own private property.

It might be a minute difference to clarify but it's an important one

*unless the owner of the private roadway places a valid licence as a condition for usage of their roads

>>568796

No one denies a lot of Christians used to believe homosexuals should be executed. That's entirely different from saying they cannot repent. Christians generally also supported the death penalty for murders, but that doesn't mean they didn't believe murderers could repent, even if they still must be punished for their crime. Paul was a murderer and repented.

>>568796

>Can you bring up any notable Christian who said gays cannot repent prior to the last 20 or 30 years

<Sola English Common Law means everybody did

So you can't?

>>568813

If you feel like reading the rest Romans 1, it is clear Paul is talking about the concupiscence that all men are afflicted with, not just railing against homos. I have no idea how Romans 2:1 is supposed to remotely make sense in view of Anderson’s bullshit exegesis, unless you think literally everything was buggering each other at the time. Also 1 Corinthians 6 still explicitly mentions sodomites repenting in both the Greek and the KJV despite whatever hand-wringing Anderson (pbuh) may have done.

>>568789

>This is why we are to pay taxes, so the state can continue to hold society together.

Oh right, so how do you explain the family courts and CPS then, huh? Did the CPS and Family Courts exist between 1776 and 1791 America? From whom did the revolutionaries request permission to issue marriage certificates? By your logic we have no rulers.

>>568810

Are you going to marry a repentant prostitute?

Same reasoning applies. God can heal and save everyone, but that doesn't mean we should give them full trust with certain positions, prior to a clear revelation from God such as with Paul.

>>568994

Even if the state claims to authorize marriage, it still doesn't.

>>569005

Exactly my point

>In the beginning God created civil government

said no verse in the bible.

The reason why churches are outsourcing their duties and obligations is because they have no means of enforcing God's laws.

I suppose the optimist in me says "well at least we don't have to tithe anymore."

>>568779

Children and marriage, mostly. The government preventing you from teaching your children as you would want them to be raised (either with homeschooling or forcing faggotry/evolution within education, etc.), promoting abortion, and encouraging divorce is very, very evil.

>>569006

>Exactly my point

Your point doesn't work unless the state is successfully controlling marriage. Unless your point wasn't intended to have anything to do with what it was replying to

>>569017

It's complicated.

>>568869

>If you feel like reading the rest Romans 1,

You mean verses 29-32? You realize that isn't a complete sentence right? Verse 29-32 is the continuation, verse 28 is the start of the sentence and the subject is "God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" Semicolon means the sentence is not over; all these things apply to each sodomite. And as I mentioned before, verse 32 again says they which "commit such things" are worthy of death.

>I have no idea how Romans 2:1 is supposed to remotely make sense in view of Anderson’s bullshit exegesis

It makes perfect sense because people today ignore God's judgement in Romans 1:32 that sodomites are worthy of death and substitute their own judgement thinking they know better. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. i.e. they which "commit such things" are reprobate: Romans 1 is telling us the judgement of God and we are sure of his judgement instead of inserting our own.

>1 Corinthians 6 still explicitly mentions sodomites repenting

No it doesn't, you are reading a mistranslation. 1 Corinthians 10:13 also tells us that there is no temptation taken them "but such as is common to man." If you actually believe 2 Peter 2:9 then you know it is no accident when they are given up to a reprobate mind and lust "against nature." Nobody is born that way, it is no accident, it's God's judgement.

>>569088

>You mean verses 29 to 32?

No, I’m presuming you can count, and I mean starting from the beginning and reading it to the end (I suppose you don’t need to read the greeting that typifies Pauline epistles, but at least from verse 16).

>It makes perfect sense because people today ignore God's judgement in Romans 1:32 that sodomites are worthy of death and substitute their own judgement thinking they know better.

"Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things"

What do you think Paul is saying here, that the only people who judge are the reprobate sodomites from the awful reading earlier? Or is he possibly talking about mankind in general when he says "Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful"?

<durr it’s mistranslated

"Abusers of themselves with mankind" is clear enough, but αρσενοκοιται is literally "manbedders". The only people who dispute this are homophiles.

1 Corinthians 10 is as much about fornicators and idolators, so very much a point against "homos alone cannot repent". 2 Peter 2:9 does not make me a Calvinist.

>>569131

Romans 1:16-23 is talking about God and mankind in general, yes. That doesn't change anything I've said.

>What do you think Paul is saying here, that the only people who judge are the reprobate sodomites from the awful reading earlier?

Well we've moved to a new sentence here in Romans 2:1. Now he is talking about whoever judges their own personal judgement. There are plenty of parallels to this sentence, the idea being that we as fallible man don't judge, but allow God's judgements to stand instead. This is what I see all you people doing, saying "they aren't that bad" and so on. Apparently you haven't read Romans 1:29-32 which is describing all sodomites.

>1 Corinthians 10 is as much about fornicators and idolators,

Temptation to fornication and idolatry are both common to man. Nowhere are they described as against nature. 1 Corinthians 10:13 is an assurance against being reprobate or hardened by God to commit those things. Also in Hebrews 4:15 it says Jesus the Son of God was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. So I really hope we can agree on this point now.

>2 Peter 2:9 does not make me a Calvinist.

Do you believe that the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations?

Shameless bump, dude. Don't get mad at me, this is super important to understand. Thanks.