Baptism: Essential to Salvation?

Is Baptism essential to Salvation?

Nearly every person, Christian or not, knows of the ordinance and sacrament of Baptism but I'm not sure if people realise the importance the sacrament of Baptism is given in most of Christendom. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and some Anglican, Lutheran and Methodist traditions consider Baptism to be an actual supernatural transformation that Evangelical would call "being born again" but what exactly does this mean?

In John 3:1-21, Jesus explains to a Pharisee called Nicodemus the importance of being born again and exactly what it entails. The Lord said:

"In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." John 3:3

Jesus is then asked, possibly mockingly, by Nicodemus if it is necessary that he must get back into his mothers womb and literally be born again, Jesus explains:

"Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit." John 3:5

Thus, I feel that it is clear from these verses that being born again is a two fold event - Being born of water and of spirit. (Being born of the spirit is a topic I will discuss in another blog post, in this post I will try to concentrate on water Baptism). Many Evangelicals would argue that being "born of water" is a literal birth but from a person understanding of scripture I feel that Baptism is they conscious act of faith that one makes in agreeing to be baptised in the same manner that Jesus was to "fulfill all righteousness" (Matt. 3:15).

The scriptures testify of the importance of Baptism, and although Baptism alone cannot save, the faith that leads one to Baptism does. Many Evangelicals that I have discussed Baptism with are quick to say that Baptism, whilst a beautiful outward expression of inward change and obedience, is not essential for salvation. The following is a list of verses that outline why I personally disagree with this interpretation of Baptism:

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Acts 2:38-39 - Then Peter said unto them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

1 Peter 3:21 - "...whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, (not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Acts 22:16 - "And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Romans 6:4 - "Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

To me, these verses testify of importance of Baptism to a believer in ones hope of salvation. In Mark 16:16, it explains that Baptism is a product of faith and Peter explains that "baptism doth also now save us....through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" in an act of faith which the book of Acts says will "...wash away thy sins". Paul then goes on to say that through Baptism we are "buried...through Baptism into death" so that we may "walk in newness of life".

Whilst concentrating on the importance of Baptism, I'm sure our loving God knows the personal circumstances of those who come to faith in Christ and may not have the opportunity to be baptised because of their situation, much like the criminal on the cross next to Christ who was promised paradise (Luke 23:43). I would also be slow to encourage infant Baptism because as the scriptures say, Baptism is an expression of an individuals faith and in most traditions, Infant Baptism is to wash away "original sin", a doctrine which I do not hold to (Deut. 24:16).

To me, and my understanding of the scriptures, it is clear that Baptism is a commanded act of obedience as a result of faith in Jesus Christ. According to the scriptures, only with this faith and entering into Baptism can one be saved. Baptism is an act, that I feel, we as individuals must enter into freely just as Jesus Christ did at his baptism (Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34) because this is an act and in effect a work of faith and as the Book of James says "faith without works, is dead" (James 2:20). At the same time, as stated earlier, let us not forget God's mercy and understanding to those who do not have the opportunity to be baptised.

Jesus Christ: The Socialist?

I've heard many times from the more left wing orientated Christians that I know that Jesus Christ taught Socialist principles. Though the word Socialism didn't exsist back in Christ's day, it could be said that the teachings he promoted are akin to some of the principles of Socialism today.

Before I dive head on into this topic, I'd like to first explain why I've chosen to blog about this particular subject. When I read the scriptures, I often wonder about how Jesus must have been perceived by those who sought to destroy him, I remember back to the scene at the Temple where our Lord filled with anger smashed up the stalls of the sellers and exchangers because of their unjust charges and prices [John 2:13-22] and I think "Wow, our Saviour wasn't just something out of the norm, he was and is a revolutionary figure" and that is why I have written this blog.

Is it true that Jesus didn't speak highly of the rich? I don't see it that way, I think our Lord spoke out against the rich who left their money idle or wasted it instead of helping their neighbour. Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" [Mark 10:25 or Matthew 19:24] but the scriptures continue saying:

"And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?

And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible."

This is an example of Christ presenting the Kingdom as an eternal refuge for all. He doesn't say they rich won't enter Heaven, indeed, he seems to suggest that if they put their trust in God they will see the Kingdom.

To me, when I think of riches on a must grander scale, I think of the riches God has given us. He has given us the gift of speech to preach his love and the many talents people posses from playing the Piano to running a mile in a few minutes! God has ensured that whether our finances are great or small, we all have riches that no financial system can measure.

Jesus does indeed teach that the privileged have a duty to care for the poor but also that the Church should be there as a crutch for the poor to lean on when pulling themselves up from poverty whether spiritual or material. Indeed, Jesus tells the apostles to sell what they have and to give the money they earn from it to the poor, he then comforts them with some of his wisest words and words that we today are slow to remember. He starts the passage, taken from Luke 12, by saying:

"Then Jesus said to his disciples: "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes" (Luke 12:22-24)

Jesus is clear that it is the things of this world that do not matter, the things we cling to in this life mean nothing in the next. Jesus Christ isn't teaching Socialism and nor are Socialists preaching Christian teachings, but his principles are the foundation of Christian living and are to be found in his "manifesto" - The New Testament

Christians are slow to remember our duty to those less fortunate than us, I hope that though this post is short, anyone who reads it is lead by the spirit to share whatever riches they have with those who have less than us or nothing at all.

A three in one God, or a God head of three?

The following is a small article that my friend and Latter-day Saint scholar kindly wrote for my blog explaining the belief of Latter-day Saints in a God head rather than a Triune God. This is a contentious subject for many and indeed brings many Churches to reject Latter-day Saint Baptism as their belief on the nature of God is viewed as out side Christian orthodoxy.

Before we go onto Robert's article, here's a bit of trivia for you! Did you know that the Episcopalian (Anglican) Bishop of Utah was Baptised Latter-day Saint and still was not rebaptised? The US Episcopal Church is the only part of the Anglican Communion that has not asked that a person Baptised Latter-day Saint be Re-baptised - This of course is to do with the manner in which they are baptised, it's in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost....but not the Trinitarian God.

Robert titles the Latter-day Saint God head as "Kingship Monotheism" rather then Henotheism or even Polytheism. I hope you enjoy Roberts article!

"One of the more controversial teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that there are a plurality of divine beings, something taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Sermon in the Grove (AKA Sermon on the Plurality of the Gods) and canonised revelations, such as D&C 121 and 132. This theology holds that, though there is one God to whom we worship (in one sense, the Father, and in another sense, the Father, Son, and Spirit, who are “one” per John 17, not in the metaphysical Trinitarian sense, but in a more social Trinitarian sense), there exists (ontologically) other gods in the midst of the Most High.

Many critics, especially Evangelical Protestants, of Latter-day Saint theology claim that (1) the Bible teaches strict monotheism and (2) there is no evidence for the LDS belief in a plurality of divinity.

Due to space constraints, I will only deal with a few texts that are used by both LDS and critic.

Critics are fond of using the Shema’ (Deuteronomy 6:4), which, in Hebrew, reads, “Listen, Israel; YHWH is our God; YHWH alone” (my translation from the Hebrew). The statement is often made that this passage supports strict monotheism.

While the opening words of the Shema are generally interpreted as a ringing affirmation of monotheism, their original sense was “Yahweh is our god, Yahweh alone,” an expression of the exclusive worship of Yahweh also commanded in the Decalogue (Deuteronomy 5:7), while implicitly recognising other gods, as the first commandment of the Decalogue does not express monotheism, according to Michael Coogan, but rather presumes that other gods exist. As in a marriage, one of the primary analogues for covenant, Israel is to be faithful, like a wife to her husband or, as in a treaty, like a vassal to his suzerain. When the prophets condemn the Israelites for having worshiped other gods in violation of this commandment, the metaphors of marital and political fidelity are often invoked, sometimes graphically (e.g., Ezekiel 16:23-34; 23:2-12; Jeremiah 2:23-25; 3:1-10). Yahweh is a jealous husband (e.g, Exodus 34:14) and the worship of other gods, or making alliances with foreign powers, provokes his rage (Michael D. Coogan, The Old Testament: a historical and literary introduction to the Hebrew scriptures (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 176, 116).

Interestingly, the Book of Deuteronomy itself is a key witness to the plurality of divinity.

Let us examine Deuteronomy 32:7-9 briefly:

While the KJV uses “sons of Adam,” the Dead Sea Scrolls has “Sons of God,” that Bible scholars understand to denote “gods.” The following is the New Revised Standard Version rendition of this pericope, chosen as this translation captures the Hebrew idioms and poetic formulations:

7. Remember the days of old,
consider the years long past:
ask your father, and he will
inform you;
your elders and they will tell you.
8. When the Most High
apportioned the nations,
when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the
peoples
according to the number of the
gods;
9. the Lord’s own portion was his
people,
Jacob his allotted share.

Here we read that YHWH is just one of many Gods who are given to various nations. These gods are not just idols, but they ontologically exist. Of course, while there are multiple gods in the midst of God, we must not place these gods in the same level as God the Father, for we read, that there is, to us, One God, the Father, and One Lord, Jesus Christ .

Note: The word "god" does not posses the same power and meaning as "God". Beings usually refered to as "God" are the almighty creators in religions.

Now, let us examine some passages that support LDS theology.

Genesis 20:13

The Hebrew of Genesis 20:13 uses plural verb structures and plural persons when discussing the (true) Gods who caused Abraham to wander. It is rednered –
Wyhy k'sr ht'w 'ty 'lhym mbbyt 'by ... (English: "And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house..."). Another way to put it: "And it came to pass when they, (the) Gods, caused me to wander from the house of my father..." Not only is this consistent with LDS theology, but also supports the creation story in the Book of Abraham. If it had been the singular 'God', it would have been ht'h 'lhym rather than the plural ht'w 'lhym. Yet, in spite of the Hebrew, no one seems willing to translate this passage literally. Nevertheless, plural gods are mentioned in the Hebrew of the text.

1 Corinthians 8

Many anti-Mormons attack the LDs interpretation of this chapter, saying that Paul is discussing “so-called” gods and false deity.

It is true that Paul is discussing false gods and idols. However, he makes an interesting comment, in that there are gods “in heaven.” False idols, made by human hands, cannot possibly be in heaven, so Paul must be discussing gods in the sense LDS understand this passage.

Indeed, readings of the Greek text reveals Paul's sentence structure and use of existential verbs indicate that the gods in heaven and earth to which he speaks are quite real.
I think part of the problem is caused by the fact that the term now often translated "so-called" is just one of the meanings of the word in question. In some Greek texts this refers to something's title, or meaning "titled" or "to have the appellation of" and think it most likely the meaning in this passage. Thus Paul was referring to those who have the appellation or title of gods in both heaven and earth. It speaks nothing as to their nature. It also speaks not to idols for there are no idols or false gods in heaven. Additionally, Paul did not say, "there are people who believe that there are many gods and many lords in heaven and on earth" or "there are people who falsely believe that there are many gods and many lords in heaven or on earth" but he said, "There ARE many gods and lords in heaven or on earth.”

While much more could be written on this issue, such as a careful exegesis of Ps 82 and the meaning of elohim in its historical context and in light of Ps 89, and Christ’s use of this passage in John 10, it is clear that there is strong biblical support for the LDS concept of the “number of God,” notwithstanding the protestations of many critics."

Suggested texts:

Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).

Blake T. Ostler, Of God and Gods (Sal Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008).

Robert can be contacted at Irishlds87@gmail.com. He also has a website that dispells myths and lies about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is viewable by clicking here.

Evangelical Anglicans

Well, this will be the most unbiased thing you ever read about Evangelical Anglicanism.

I hope the sarcasm emanating from above didn't make you pass out from hysterical laughter and you are able to continue reading!

Evangelical Anglicanism is to me, one of the most fascinating elements of the Anglican Communion. I find it hard to place it within the Anglican Communion which, to be honest is because of ignorance. The High Church, with it's beautiful traditions stems from the Catholic influence from the Churches roots and to me, the traditions fit with Anglicanism's past and legacy and I say that even though I am far from High Church!

I just can't fathom how Evangelical Anglicanism (Evangie Angies as I call them) fit in the family, to me they are the black sheep not us gays! But still, I welcome them with open arms, and open heart and burning need to understand and learn!

Unlike many Evangelical Anglicans (Lets use the Irish Church Mission as an example) I don't feel that just because people are different, believe things which by appearance seem to differ from traditional teaching or beliefs. I remember John 7:24 when faced with circumstances like this - "Judge not by appearance but judge righteously" and that verse is what drives me to investigate, not so I can condemn or condone but so I can understand.

Evangelical Anglicans share many of the principles, values and beliefs as many "Independent" Christian movements. They often view the scriptures as inerrant and take them literally and believe in the use of the gift of tongues (amongst other gifts of the Spirit). That's just to name a few things which make them distinct.

I, like many, view the Scriptures as the word of God through the hands of Men (Where as groups like the Church of Ireland Evangelical Fellowship deny that the men writing had any influence on the scriptures). To me, the writers of the Scriptures were influenced by their times, traditions and their way of thinking and thankfully the Scriptures are written in a way that allows us to filter this out by relating it to events of the past and of course by prayer and the Spirit.

Evangelical Anglicans like the ICM however, have their roots in a movement which was soley based on converting "Romanists" to the reformed faith and in modern times they have branched out to attack (and often mislead people about) other "new" religions such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and even institutions such as Free Masonry!

I am quite biased, because the relationship I've had with the more Charismatic elements of the Christian family have been bad. I've seen it used as a tool of oppression too often. This blog isn't an indept discussion of Evangelical Anglicanism because I know very little about it's differences to the likes of what I see on God TV so I would like to ask the following questions:

1. What is the difference between Evangelical Anglicans and other Evangelicals outside the Church?
2. Without sounding like I don't think they have a place in the Church (Because that's of course not what I mean!), what do Evangelical Anglicans find in the Anglican Communion that they can't find out side?

I know that's not a lot of questions but I'm only seeking to learn more about the more Charismatic elements in our Anglican Communion. I'm proud that middle of the road Gay Anglicans like me, High Church Anglicans who find solace in prayers to the Saints and Evangelical Biblical literalists can all find the redeeming love and grace of Jesus Christ together in our Anglican Family.

My journey of faith and why I'm an Anglican!

Well, I'll start this blog off by giving my religious back ground as it were. My family is all Roman Catholic, my Nan especially so! My parents however did not want to baptise my sister and I for two reasons:

1) They wanted us to choose
2) They just didn't care

My Nan of course objected to this and liked to remind us constantly that if we were not baptised and we died, we'd end up in Purgatory. When I was young, I used to go to mass enthusiastically with my Nan and from the age of Six I told everyone I wanted to be a Priest! My Mum used to politely say "Just wait till your older before you start thinking like that" - She was of course correct to say that.

In 1996 my Nan gave me my first Prayer book and Rosary beads and I used to read from it nearly every night. At about the same time I started attending a Pentecostal Youth group in an Elim Pentecostal Church right around the corner from my house, the Youth group was more of a fun group and even though the Pastor Glenn preached, it was very light hearted stuff and more about love of God and neighbour. I continued attending the "630 club" until I moved from the UK when I was 13 in 2003.

I also attended a Church of England service on the first Sunday of every month as part of my duties as a scout. My Church was St. Albans and the Priest there was Fr. Hingley, he was as camp as Christmas but he was a nice man! It was a high Anglican Church, we'd say the Angelus half way through and then end the service with singing the national Anthem! I left the scouts when I was about 12.

When I got to Ireland, I was astounded that people in Primary Schools had to go to Confirmation or Communion classes and even at 13 I was offended that people did it as tradition and not because it meant anything real to them except a nice new dress, a meal and some cash. From about 13 to 14 I ignored the subject of religion except when it came to the class where I remember arguing with my religion teacher when she suggested that Jesus' life was completely historically accurate!

When I was 14 I bought a Qur'an, not because I was interested in becoming a Muslim but because I wanted to find out more about another perspective on God than the Roman Catholic one I had become so accustomed to. I read the Qur'an all the way through (It's a lot shorter than the Bible) and I found it interesting, but not inspiring enough to make me reject Christ as the Son of God! After reading the Qur'an I went to read the Bible as I saw it as the next logical step - I became utterly confused! All a long I was taught to pray to certain Saints for specific things but I read a gospel of the Unity of the God head and the ultimate mediator, Jesus Christ. Since that "personal revelation" I have never prayed to a Saint.

After wards, I started to realise that the sexuality I knew I was since I was around 9 was going to be a huge stepping stone in a life that I wanted God to be pleased with. When I first realised something was different at the age of 9, I used to cry to God a lot, not fully understanding why I was different but feeling that because I was different I was something bad that made God unhappy or sad. After assesing the Roman Catholic perspective on things like salvation, Mary, Saints, Homosexuality, Contraception, The Eucharist, Power etc I saw a Church that had it's head in the Middle ages.

Then I discovered the Church of Ireland. I first attended a Church of Ireland service on November 13th 2005. I walked in the door of the Church (In a tracksuit bottoms and random cheap T-shirt!) and I was welcomed by Canon David Williams. He was really nice and normal! My previous experience of Priests was that of seperation but here was a Priest talking to me. After the remembrance service I attended Church every Sunday and always arrived early, It was my job to light the candles.

Almost immediately I spoke to Canon Williams about Baptism. As I said earlier, my Parents didn't baptise me and my Nan's constant bellowing of Purgatorial threats still rang clear. I was blessed enough to be Baptised and Confirmed by The Rt. Rev. Paul Colton, Bishop of Cork, Cloyne and Ross. It was an amazing day because I felt like part of the Church family and part of a community that I previously found it hard to find ground in.

After that, I still continued to go to Church but of course, as I grew, my sexuality became "more real" to me. I read the scriptures daily as always and one day came across the Book of Sirach in the Apocrypha - In it, Sirach tells his Son Jesus to remain sexually pure and when I read that it hit like a train in the face! I associated that feeling with what I felt as a youngster when I knew I was "different" and I came to associate it with meaning, a meaning that meant I had to change.

I came across the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through the internet, I had also got a Book of Mormon by post to give to a friend as a Joke Christmas present and it was in my bedroom cupboard. I took it out of the cupboard and read it and decided it was a load of crap because I believed nothing could add to the Bible (A classic misinterpretation of the last verses of the Book of Revelation). However, after familiarising myself with their doctrine (Which I found was a lot of common sense and biblical) I took a second look at the Book of Mormon and over 3 weeks I read about 80% of it through.

In April of 2007 I took the bus to Cork Airport and then got a Cab to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint's chapel just past the sarsfield road round about. I walked in the door feeling under dressed as I was in jeans and a jumper while they were all in suits. I was welcomed by missionaries who were surprised I knew so much about scripture including their Book of Mormon. I had written out questions to ask them and they answered every one of them! Their names were Elder Ethington and Elder Penrod. They were such nice guys!

After meeting those two missionaries, I was handed over to Elder Hayes who is now a dear friend of mine, and his companion, Elder Langner. Over the next few months we learnt from each other and I studied the scriptures more and more and went to the Latter-day Saint chapel every Sunday for a year or more, after that it was every few weeks or so.

A by product of attending the Latter-day Saints chapel was that I became very indoctrinated which is not always a bad thing but In my case, I feel it was. I stopped drinking, swearing and other things teenage boys entertain themselves with and I became to feel very content and happy and It was happiness! Pure happiness! But, I was suppressing a monster - my sexuality.

It stayed in the back of my mind but at night, I would cry to God as I did as a child to cure me and help me and I would apologise for being a disgrace to him and my family. I wanted so hard to be "straight" so that I wouldn't disappoint my God or my parents, I really wanted them to have a great, righteous and loving son. I continued to attend the Latter-day Saint chapel and kept the commandments of God and was diligent in doing so and I managed to do it without adopting the traditional Latter-day Saint superiority complex which was rife in the Church.

I met many fantastic people in the Church - Elder Douglas, Sister Douglas, Robert Boylan, Elder Hayes, Liam Curtain, The Jensons - who have had a real and lasting impact on my life and my out look on things. The happiness was not to last!

One night, as my Parents were on holiday, I decided to invite about 15 friends over to the house for a party - I wasn't drinking obviously - but my friends were. That night, I gave into temptation when it came to alcohol for the first time in a long time and I told my friends of the inner struggle I was facing. They had known I was gay since I was 15 however, they thought my suppressing it was working.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints position on homosexuality is that if you're gay, stay celibate. They don't encourage you to try and cure it or get married as a way to solve it. You just have to stay celibate which of course, I would do if God wanted it.

That night changed everything, it made me re-evaluate everything but I still held dear to the doctrine and in the December of that year, in an emotional state, I sent the most stupid email I have ever sent (to date), it asked for my "excommunication" from the Church of Ireland. I managed to get my Bishop worried and my local Minister thought I was suicidal (which my Chaplain and I found hysterical as I was a really happy person). I went to meet my Minister and lets just say, things didn't go well! He turned me off Anglicanism for the mean time and I ignored it and considered nothing but a regret.

At the same time, I was continuing to go to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint chapel and meet with the missionaries but less often than before. People in the Latter-day Saint congregation started questioning why I wasn't being baptised, I knew it was because I wasn't "cured" of my homosexuality but I told no one. I went soul searching and scripture searching to help me and I researched both sides of the homosexual debate and to my surprise, I found that out ofconviction NOT convenience, God ordains all loving, meaningful relationships.

I read over the Bible verses and read them in context for the first time ever. I don't consider this a liberal thing, I consider it common sense! I know that the Hebrews had no idea that a loving relationship between two same sex people was possible, even Queen Victoria only 150 years ago couldn't comprehend the idea of two women being in a relationship and refused to make it illegal because she didn't think it possible.Also, The Hebrew people needed to have children to continue their people and would have seen homosexual relations as an obstacle to propagating their seed.

I read the verses in Romans chapter one (ones which I had previously, and God forgive me, used against my gay friends) and understood that the reason Paul spoke negatively of homosexuality was that he saw it as a Pagan practice and talks not of people who were born gay but people turning against "their natural use...burning in lust for one another". In my process of accepting my homosexuality as something I was born with and acknowledging and understanding that God ordains all love, I set up LGBT Christians to help people in the same position as I was in.

I was looking for the love and acceptance of God and I realised, when I left the Church of Ireland, I walked away from the very love I craved.

In February of 2009, I contacted my Bishop to apologise for the sill email I had sent and informed him of some of the things that had taken place in the meeting with my minister and it was obvious that Bishop Paul was and is a very understanding man of God. It took sometime but when I first could, I attended St. Anne's Church in Shandon, an LGBT friendly Church and met the wonderful Rev'd Brian O'Rourke. This month (May) I attended a service at St. Finbarrs for the International Day Against Homophobia that my Bishop was kind enough to attend. It was all this that made me see God and his love working in the Church of Ireland, I found the love and acceptance of God in the Church of Ireland and I wanted to be a part of it again!

I am proud to be an Anglican; Why? Because it means loving my God, my neighbour and my self all in the name of my saviour Jesus Christ who loves me for how he created me.

A new blog!

So, I was looking over my older blogs (LeeLum & Reliteen) and I thought "Why do I have two blogs?" So, I decided to mush them together and make this blog!

Lot's of things have changed since I first started my other blogs for example, I've gone back to the loving Church of Ireland after a lot of soul searching and also, I'm a lot more understanding of what I am, what I'm aiming for and how I should treat others.

I'll be using this blog often but you can also follow me on twitter where my username is LeeLum!

P.s. All the posts made previously to this are simply copied from Reliteen!

A Defence of Biblical Polygamy?

While trailing through the usual sources where I learn about different religions, sects and opinions I came across this website which promotes polygamy. Now, this website isn't associated with any "Mormon" sect of Christianity like the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but is an independent promoter of polygamy.

From now on, everything quoted on this post will be directly from the website (with permission granted by the web master of the site).

Many Christians are unsettled about polygamy because of the widespread error constantly promoted by the denominational systems that polygamy is adultery. Polygamy is not adultery, is never called adultery by God and it is God who defines sin, not our favourite "church".

Traditionalists vainly attempt to argue polygamy as sin (from such passages as 1 Timothy 3:2, Genesis 2:24, Ephesians 5, Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7) despite the fact that neither these nor any other Bible passage clearly show God supporting such a stand.

Our God promoted polygamy and our God does not promote sin. Our God is a polygamist and does not engage in any form of wickedness.Our God made laws for polygamy. Our God destroyed a man who would not practice polygamy. Our God calls polygamy holy. I think it is time “Churchianity” ceased contradicting God.

Polygamy was not blessed by God in the O.T. then suddenly declared adultery in the N.T., then to be re-sanctioned and used in the future Kingdom. Our God is not as inconsistent as contemporary exegesis. Adultery remains adultery and polygamy was not so in the past, not now or in the future.

Is the Bible against polygamy? Absolutely not!

Is polygamy Biblical? Yes and we intend to compare Scripture with Scripture and pray our fellow believers will carefully examine this subject in the same fashion without the colouring of the imbalanced majority position.

Genesis 2:24
the two one flesh

Exodus 21
laws about
concubines

Deuteronomy 21
wives taken in war

2 Samuel 12
King David
& what is adultery

Ezekiel 23
God's two wives

1 Timothy 3
marriage for deacons
does not
condemn polygamy

Matthew 19
Gen.2:24
used against divorce,
not polygamy

1 Corinthians 7
Abused and chopped
by tradition

In the past the "church" has tried, condemned and murdered polygamists and one wonders what they would do with Abraham, David and many other friends of God if they were in the assemblies today. Missionaries are even now breaking up polygamous families, forcing mothers and children into desperate situations by religions cultural and non-Biblical views on marriage. Polygamists, both ancient and modern, are part of God's family as the day of glory will show.


If God calls polygamists holy it is time His children stopped contradicting Him.


You can view more on this biblical defence of polygamy at the Bible Polygamy home page