New Law Bans Demonstrations at Funerals - 2

Rufus posted a response that deserves an answer. Unfortunately, I had to start a new thread to do it.

Here is his post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Larry
That’s simply inconsistent.

Disagree.

Quote:
You are welcome to keep defending it. It is irrelevant to this discussion, and is self-attesting. It doesn’t need our defense. It needs our proclamation.
The word of God doesn't need anything however, we are called to defend it especially when it is under attack. It is relevant to this discussion as you asked me what two documents I defend, it is one of the two the constitution being the other.

Quote:
And for years, the Constitution has been ruled to permit such things as this. So clearly, the constitution is not on your side, according to those to whom the Constitution is entrusted.
For years Roe V Wade has been in play. It doesn't mean that the constitution is not on our side it just means their are justices that have perverted the Constitution.

Quote:
Nope, We have the power to vote. We elect people to represent us in government.
Yes we do and the process by which we elect representatives is broken and the justices of the supreme court for decades have been spinning the constitution on end.

Quote:
The rulings of the land are a separate issue. I preach against abortion, not Roe.
You don't preach against the ruling that brought us the deaths of 40 million children? Remarkable.

Quote:
I don’t preach about Kelo because it has nothing to do with Scripture. But that really isn’t the point.
The principles of property have everything to do with scripture and certainly have much to do with liberty.

"The liberty of the press, trial by jury, the Habeas Corpus writ, even Magna Charta itself, although justly deemed the palladia of freedom, are all inferior considerations, when compared with a general distribution of real property among every class of people. The power of entailing estates is more dangerous to liberty and republican government than all the constitutions that can be written on paper, or even than a standing army. Let the people have property and they will have power." - Noah Webster​

"The American clergy had for one hundred years prior to the American Revolution preached on the subject of property--its Biblical basis and responsibility." - (Source: Noah Webster Founding Father of American Scholarship and Education)​

Today American clergy say property has nothing to do with scripture. Complete madness.

Quote:
That’s great. It’s not enough to determine whether or not one is a Christian, since Satan would confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
The property statement can only be surpassed in outlandishness by this one. You are suggesting that Satan has the spirit of God?

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:" - 1 John 4:2​

Quote:
You don’t get to decide the “proper application.” The constitution does not afford you that authority.
I have no more authority then that which is granted as a citizen. I have a grievance and I am exercising my right to express it while I still can.

Quote:
That’s just bad judgment on your part.
Ah so now you're defending your Calvinist brother eh?

Quote:
And this law doesn’t seem to infringe on those rights. He can still say it.
He sure can. Only his right of where he can say it and when, has been abridged by a law drafted by congress.

The last word is yours. I'm done with this thread.

 

That’s fine. It is still inconsistent.You can't defend a limited view of the first amendment at the same time you condemn it. You have acknowledged that the first amendment is not unlimited.

The question was why the Bible was even involved in this conversation. So far as I know, the Bible does not deal with the first amendment, or protests at funerals.

And it must be overturned through the same means.

The process of election isn’t broken that I can tell. It works just as it has for years. There has always been corruption in it. But that is the way the system is set up.

Why is it remarkable that I don’t preach against something that is not found in the Bible? If you can find me a passage that addresses Roe, I will preach on it. Until then, due to my idea that we as preachers should preach God’s word, I will limit my preaching to what the Word says. So I will continue to preach against abortion when we come to a text that addresses it. I will not preach against Roe since I have yet to find a text that addresses it.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that someone limiting their preaching to the Bible is remarkable.

But Kelo is not found in Scripture. So we don’t preach on that.

What clergy are you talking about? The right of personal property is certainly taught in Scripture. It is the basis for laws against theft. I have preached that and do preach it when I come to a text that has it. But Kelo is not found in Scripture (unless you are aware of some verses I am not).

The pulpit is not to be a place of politics. It never should have been. It is to be a place where Christ is held high, not our political opinions. Too many churches have given up their influence by turning to politics. Preach Jesus. He is the only one that can save. Every thing I say about politics in the pulpit takes time away from Jesus. I can’t do that.

When a church gets involved in politics, it loses it right to be called a church. We should follow the example of Paul and preach Christ and him crucified.

You don’t seem to be thinking clearly. In 1 John 4:2, “confessing Jesus has come in the flesh” is far more than a simple statement. It is a commitment and a life. Satan would say that Jesus has come in the flesh. He would not make the commitment. And that is a huge difference. Perhaps you just didn’t think through my response very carefully. I was trying to be short in my writing and perhaps was unclear.

That’s fine to express it.

No. Calvinism is not the topic here.

But he can still say it. Let this run through the courts and see what happens. But at face value, it doesn’t contradict or infringe on the first amendment.