Tag Archives: covenant

•

Last Friday, Michigan became a "gay marriage" state, by the decision of a federal judge, overturning a vote of the people.  Even though the governor has requested a stay until it can be sorted out in SCOTUS, at least one country clerk has "gender neutral" marriage licenses ready to go today.

I want to be clear.

I am going to be a BRIDE.

I am NOT "applicant A"

I am NOT "party B"

I am NOT "thing one" or "thing two"

1 - A license, by definition, says that the state is giving me permission to do that which is otherwise illegal.  If I must have a license in order to marry, then marriage is illegal, unless the state gives me permission to enter into a marriage.

2 - the state, by way of being the one who gives permission to marry (as opposed to God giving permission) now has the authority to define marriage (as opposed to God defining marriage.)

3 - what the state is giving "us" (citizens) permission to do is no longer "marriage" (according to Scripture.)

When is it time for Christians to opt out of a corrupt system?

Do Christians need the state's permission to enter into a covenant before God, their family,  and their church community?

I don't want a "gender neutral" marriage certificate.

 

•

There's a case in Michigan that just had closing arguments on Friday; the judge will rule within a couple of weeks on whether or not Michigan will become the next state to fall to this madness.

Part one:

In an article from February 24, this caught my eye

"Nothing says family like a marriage license," DeBoer told reporters before entering the courthouse hand-in-hand with Rowse, her partner of eight years.

I've worked in public schools for a number of years and I've seen many (politically correct) books say that this is NOT true.  We've been pushing the idea that "families come in all forms" - if a child is being raised by a single mom, that's a family.  If a child is being raised by a single dad, that's a family.  If a child is being raised by his or her grandparents, that's a family.  If a man and a woman (or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or a person and their cat) are living together without children, that's a family.  Mom and boyfriend/Dad and girlfriend...family.  You get my drift.

What a surprise to find out that it's a "marriage license" that says "family!"

What about faith?

The point of this madness is not to give gay folks the "right to marry" - it's not only to normalize that which has never been "normal."  It is to GLORIFY that lifestyle choice, and to force EVERYBODY to accept it, applaud it, normalize it.

remember the Borg?  "You will be assimilated."

People of faith who do not agree that "government sanctioned gay relationships" are wrong?  Via Tammy Bruce

Having been a liberal “community organizer” in my past, I immediately recognized the strategy being employed. This is an effort to condition the public into automatically equating faith with bigotry.

To make faith in the public square illegal and dangerous, you need legal cases and publicity. Voila, lawsuits against small business resting on the notion that acting on genuinely held faith is bigotry per se.

Under these rules, freedom of conscience is squashed under the jackboot of liberals, all in the Orwellian name of “equality and fairness.” Here we are dealing with not just forcing someone to do something for you, but forcing them in the process to violate a sacrament of their faith as well.

If we are able to coerce someone, via the threat of lawsuit and personal destruction, to provide a service, how is that not slavery? If we insist that you must violate your faith specifically in that slavish action, how is that not abject tyranny?

And now, we wait.

• 1 Comment

•

Here are some conclusions/questions...

The author concludes that babies of covenant families are given faith by God. He is "happily agnostic" when it comes to the salvation of babies that die in unbeliving families.

so...
If we are saved by faith, it would follow that babies have some sort of faith. If they do not have faith, then how are they saved?

If babies have faith, but can fall away, what does that do for perseverence?

I'm fairly new to Reformed theology and I know that baptism does not save. However, Lusk seems to say that baptism is more than a symbol, it is more like the (my words) door through which salvation comes.

How does one relate baptism to salvation?

If baptism is a symbol, and not a vehicle, why baptize infants before they understand the symbolism?

Here is a tough one. I spent years outside the church. Looking back, I can pinpoint a moment when my relationship with God became very real. Given it is possible that is the moment I "got saved" - are the babies that I lost before that moment saved or lost?

• 2 Comments

•

I followed a link from somewhere (I can't remember where or I'd give credit) to this book. I'm relatively new to Reformed theology and barely have a grip on paedobaptism. I recognize that it's Biblical, but hesitate on the Scriptural backing. So, as kind of a general "more information" kind of thing - I got this book.

Wow.

The author is definitely "truly reformed" - and that's ok. Sometimes I find myself not wanting to sound "TR", yet believing a lot of the same things, but really not wanting the attitudes that I see in some of the "TR" folks. Anyway - that's a whole different topic. The result of the "TR" is that the book is written to Reformed or "Covenant" families.

In my jouney into my own reformation I treated a student from Calvin Seminary to a snack out and one of the hard questions that I asked was "what about babies that die, before or after they're born?" This book (for me, anyway) answered the question for believing parents (unbelieving parents are still up in the air - but they don't believe, so they're not asking the question anyway.)

Here's a link to the book

I'm going to try to go through it with notes and blog about it - Christmas break is coming up
😉

http://www.cmfnow.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=5217&HS=1