Boy Scouts Approve Plan To Accept Openly Gay Boys

AP (via 710 KURV) ^

[darrellmaurina]

Thank you for your note.

In the hands of solidly Reformed leaders in a solidly Reformed church, Calvinist Cadet Corps can be extremely useful as a way not only to teach the skills that Scouting teaches, but also to do so in a specifically Christian and specifically Reformed manner. That lack of a doctrinal foundation was a weakness in Scouting all the way back to Baden-Powell, and it is why the Calvinist Cadet Corps was originally created as an alternative to the Boy Scouts.

If you have enough other nearby churches to form a Cadet council, that's even better.

A check of the Calvinist Cadet Corps map of local councils will show that the organization is not strong where the majority of the PCA is located. That isn't a problem and could actually be a huge advantage — you can basically do things the way your churches want to do them, with the support of other likeminded PCA churches (and maybe OPC as well).

If you're in an area where there are a number of other Christian Reformed and RCA congregations, much depends on the local churches. Sometimes, perhaps many times, an interested PCA church will be welcomed with open arms and treated the same way that numerous OPC and URC churches are being treated which already have Cadets. But I would be lying if I said that will happen everywhere.

If enough PCA churches join, that could very well be a major, major help to the Cadets. The PCA is a growing denomination where even most of the weakest churches want to be evangelical. Let's just say a lot of good Southern blood from the PCA would be a godsend to conservative Dutch Reformed people.

Bottom line: I think in nearly all situations, Calvinist Cadet Corps, in the hands of a strong local PCA, OPC, or URC church, or a conservative CRC or RCA church, will be superior to what the Boy Scouts are now likely to become.

[uncommonsense]

We've had a totally different experience with Scouting and I believe mine is more typical. I've had many bad experiences at church - that doesn't make me paint the whole lot of church leaders as money grubbing, power loving, know-nothings. If you don't like the den your child goes to - change. Many churches sponsor Scouting.

As an assistant den leader and knowing the entire leadership of our pack (probably 25 leaders and 200 boys), there was no alcohol or electronics allowed. Different people had different specialties, so we had a broad range of knowledgeable people to cover character building, health (fitness, nutrition, emergency response, etc.), morality, survival / outdoor - and a lot more. Scouting provides a graduated, structured, age appropriate curriculum to learning and experiencing core life skills. The boys in each den get to learn and practice as a group, so they can help each other along the way because they experience the same skills and the stronger help the weaker.

"Pocket knives ? Fathers can’t teach pocket knives ?"

Yes, but what I emphasized is the use of them in a supervised GROUP of kids. Our pack met at an elementary school. The boys got to bring their knives to pack meetings of about 300 people at a public school if they demonstrated complete responsibility. That's a lot of liberty within a large group setting. That creates a positive early experience of freedom over nanny statism where all of the underlings are regulated based on the lowest common denominator of human behavior. Isn't that something beneficial and unique these days???

"Fatherless ? Mothers with children and no husband should marry."

Obviously. The grass is green and the sky is blue. Do you think the mother should hook up with the first smiling face after a very traumatic life event? This may take some time. And until the proper circumstance presents itself, according to you, the boys should just sit out a great opportunity to grow and experience wonderful, life-changing events until an all knowing stepfather comes along to shepherd them (hopefully before they start shaving).

"There’s this thing called extended family. Cousins, uncles, aunts, etc. They help get family through the rough spots."

There's a thing called mobility. Many families move to where a career opportunity presents itself. I grew up in a small town and had no extended family within a reasonable distance. My dad was a state trooper and was forced to move on a regular basis. Think of the "military brats" who lost their father. They could be very removed from extended family and the mother is gainfully employed - something rare in this Obama economy.

I was even more remote from family when I graduated college. So again, your and my experiences seem to be very different.

Then, if the limits of extended family are reached, there’s something called Church. Church can help with temporary needs.

Growing in life skills is not a temporary need. Getting remarried is very unpredictable. It can take quite some time and that time of imprinting positive behavior and attitude will be lost when young boys are most impressionable. Our friends / neighbor with triplet boys got divorced and the father moved out of state for employment. My son and the triplets were good friends, they were already in our den, so it was no biggie for me to take them to meetings or field trips. They kept growing at a very important time in their life. What better environment is there to show young boys responsibility directly from strong, principled, successful men?

You obviously formed a negative opinion of the Boy Scouts and I doubt I'll change your mind. I have a very positive one and I think there is a HUGE need for this organization based on current social and demographic realities. Very few boys today grow up on the farm and even if they do, they still learn a lot of life skills besides outdoor activities. In my opinion, your view on Scouting is myopic at best.

[PieterCasparzen]

Do you remember before perhaps the 1970’s just about every boy carried a knife ?

In the 1800’s.

In the 1700’s.

Young boys shot guns, carried knives, rode horses, used axes.

The Boy Scouts did not exist then.

And America was not a nanny state then.

Interestingly, today’s Scouts are learning that they can bear arms (”the boys got to bring their knives”, i.e., they were “allowed”) if and only if a higher authority allows them to.

I loved some aspects of Scouting, I have many good memories. I loved camping outside in the winter - you haven’t lived until you’ve functioned as a sled dog in a frozen, muddy February.

However, at the time I was ignorant of the Biblical teaching of the role of the family.

[uncommonsense]

"Interestingly, today’s Scouts are learning that they can bear arms (”the boys got to bring their knives”, i.e., they were “allowed”) if and only if a higher authority allows them to."

Jesus commended the centurion for understanding His authority in performing miracles. It is biblical to "be under authority" (that's where disciple came from - under discipline of an elder in the Lord). There is a significant difference in a child being under the authority of an older parental authority in order to teach proper use of dangerous implements... and statist control over all human endeavors - to restrict God given rights from use by a responsible and free people so the statists retain control over the unwashed masses. You won't acknowledge there is a difference after I explained it 3 times.

Yes, I grew up in the '60's and 70's. The public high school I went to - you could see probably 2 dozen guns in the gun rack of pickups on any given day in the student lot. TODAY, today, a kid eats a Poptart into the shape of a gun and he gets expelled.

I was introduced to Christ as a young boy by my den mother in Cub Scouts. Most Scout groups are Christian, but they let boys from other faiths participate - knowing the Scouting foundation is Christian.

Now, you may want to argue that the best way to achieve the Christian life is to set up a totally isolated and biblically ordered community. It's been tried before. But, I think the deeds of Christ backs up my belief that it's more evangelically beneficial to reach out to the broader community and show how a Christ-oriented organization provides a better foundation than Godless, statist indoctrination, which seeks to restrict thoughts and actions to their PC-approved notions so the elites retain power.

Well, it's probably a moot point trying to defend the Scouts with this new homo policy. There's probably no way to turn it back with all of the leftist forces pushing relentlessly to sexualize this organization that's chock full of healthy young boys. SICK BASTARTS!

[PieterCasparzen]

being under authority...

The Boy Scouts are not part of civil government, the family or the Church.

Though Churches sponsor some groups, the Boy Scouts report up through their national leadership. The Boy Scouts organization therefore is separate and distinct from the particular Church denomination organization. Some Churches are involved in their troops, some not very much at all.

It’s simply two different organizations, even if they both have “good intentions”.

A Church can’t order the Boy Scouts to alter their moral teachings, but at the same time a Church that is Scriptural must insist upon their members adhering to their specific teachings.

One only has to carefully review the Family Life merit badge, required for Eagle, to uncover not only unscriptural teaching, but teaching that is right out of the statist/new world order playbook. I leave the meticulous analysis of this as an exercise for the reader; simply compare a solid Reformed Christian text on child rearing with these merit badge activities. The entire content of the badge covers subjects that parents should be teaching to their sons exclusively by themselves in a Scriptural fashion. In terms of Biblical parenting, parents certainly should not be delegating the instruction of these topics. Mind you, this is the first badge I reviewed in this way.

Also, a Church has no legitimate authority over non-members; the most serious Church discipline is excommunication. So what that means is a Church is sponsoring an external organization over which it has no doctrinal control, children are turned over to this organization, which may then teach contrary to the particular Church’s interpretation of Scripture. Doesn’t make much sense for a Church unless they exclusively staff the whole thing - and then edit Boy Scouts teaching to conform to their own, which would not fly with the Boy Scouts. One then would think that a Church should simply make its own youth organization, which actually is also unscriptural in that since the teaching of youth is such a predominant and important topic in the Bible, if youth groups were acceptable to God they would without a doubt be mentioned in Scripture, yet they are not. There are only the ordained Church offices, i.e., O.T. priest, teacher, etc., none of which are ever commanded to organize youth groups of the congregation’s children in the Old or New Testament, and the head of household that provides for family leadership. This would then mean that adding youth groups to Churches would fall under the category of sinfully “adding” our own innovations to Scriptural definitions of Christ’s Church.

Only a few short years ago I was completely oblivious to most of these concerns.

The totally isolated Christian society is, of course, false doctrine. Christians need to bring the Gospel to unbelievers, to be “salt” and “light”, which requires them to participate in the world - to that end. Of course, there is also the command to separate ourselves from the evil of this world. So clearly this means that if our participation in the world starts tempting us to sin, we need to back off that particular approach and use another. Certainly we need to not only be out and about in culture, business, science, etc., but lead wherever we can, thus furthering Christ’s Kingdom. We need to remember, however, that the Bible defines the roles of family, government and Church.

On that difference perhaps we can’t quite agree; I would only highlight the concept of statism always starting out in very tiny, innocuous measures, and the key controlling point of weapons should always raise a flag. The right to weaponry is unqualified; it is the punishment of wrongdoers and the process of self-defense that restrains (but does not promise to eliminate) wrongdoings committed with weapons.

We certainly do agree on the sitiation as it stands now. It’s time for people to form their own clubs, exactly per their own wishes. They have every right to do so. Don’t bother thinking about tax exemption, IMHO; make it informal or incorporate normally.

[uncommonsense]

"We certainly do agree on the sitiation as it stands now. It’s time for people to form their own clubs, exactly per their own wishes. They have every right to do so. Don’t bother thinking about tax exemption, IMHO; make it informal or incorporate normally."

Yes, I do agree on this point. There's a way to use the best ideas and curriculum from existing organizations and grow it organically without state or corporate sponsorship. The bylaws can be a collaborative effort.

The one thing that local BSA packs relied on was investigation of anyone who volunteered for a leadership position. The national BSA did a criminal and financial background check with aliases. They keep a history of investigations and outcomes. They also required and tracked various training classes for dealing with kids. Those are all rather advanced protective and instructive activities, which is nearly impossible to duplicate for a small, organic group. The human and legal provisions are what helped the BSA to protect members (adult and child) for 100 years, and until 2013, fend off predators.

[uncommonsense]

"The human and legal provisions are what helped the BSA to protect members (adult and child) for 100 years, and until 2013, fend off predators."

And to add a salient point - the fish rots from the head...

CEO of Ernst & Young and Boy Scouts Board Member supports ending ban on gay scouts and scout leaders

CNBC exclusively broke the news tonight that James Turley, the Global Chairman & CEO of Ernst & Young who is also a Board member of the Boy Scouts of America, issued a statement in which he disagrees with the ban on gay scouts and scout leaders and supports a proposed resolution to end the ban:

“Ernst & Young is proud to have such a strong record in LGBT inclusiveness. As CEO, I know that having an inclusive culture produces the best results, is the right thing for our people and makes us a better organization. My experience has led me to believe that an inclusive environment is important throughout our society and I am proud to be a leader on this issue.”

[uncommonsense]

"One only has to carefully review the Family Life merit badge, required for Eagle, to uncover not only unscriptural teaching, but teaching that is right out of the statist/new world order playbook. I leave the meticulous analysis of this as an exercise for the reader; simply compare a solid Reformed Christian text on child rearing with these merit badge activities."

I'll make it easy for the Freepers:

This Merit Badge is Required to earn the Eagle Scout Rank

Eagle Rank Requirements

[uncommonsense]

"A Church can’t order the Boy Scouts to alter their moral teachings, but at the same time a Church that is Scriptural must insist upon their members adhering to their specific teachings."

So, no one belonging to a church can work for a private or public company that isn't scripturally approved by some church authority.

"It’s simply two different organizations, even if they both have “good intentions”. A Church can’t order the Boy Scouts to alter their moral teachings, but at the same time a Church that is Scriptural must insist upon their members adhering to their specific teachings.

Your "arguments" may work in a vacuum, but not the world we live in. We can debate indefinitely like Jesus did with the Pharisees, but I'm afraid we'd come to the same conclusion. There is religion, and there is Godliness. They are not the same.

[Please read my bio before you attack me as an apostate (if that's your next line of attack / defense)].

[PieterCasparzen]

No attacks, just doctrinal discussions, IMHO...

So, no one belonging to a church can work for a private or public company that isn't scripturally approved by some church authority.

Notice I did not say any "approval" was required by Scripture

"a Church that is Scriptural must insist upon their members adhering to their specific teachings"

I'm talking about the members of a congregation being required to refrain from open habitual sin. If I am an abortion doctor, my Church should be exercising Church discipline (admonishing me, denying the Lord's table, and excommunicating if necessary) over me. I use the phrase "specific teachings" (which is obviously wrong at face value) to refer to the fact that many denominations no longer view many sins as sins - but some denominations are still relatively close to Scriptural truth in this regard, though these denominations are relatively very small. Well, whatever a denomination sees as sin, it certainly should be using Church discipline to keep the sin out of its midst, from being openly and habitually practiced by its members, even as the Church publicly proclaims said practices as sin. To allow this would be the height of hypocrisy, would it not ?

So it's not a stamp of approval from the Church, but a rejection by the Church of careers devoted to habitual sin. Church discipline is clearly spoken of in Scripture and its reason is given - so that the sin does not spread throughout the Church. It is one thing to go out in the "worldly world" and preach to unrepentent sinners (they need the Gospel, i.e., the sick need the doctor) who are known to be committing grave sins continually; it's quite another to invite that unrepentent sinner of grave sins to join the congregation and continue merrily along persuing his sin, with the Church ignoring the sin.

Of course, we all sin - Church discipline is NOT about "someone raised his voice", i.e., minor things. The opponents of Church discipline cast it as a bunch of prudes picking at whatever suits their fancy, but such opponents simply want a Church which allows them to do as they please. Church discipline is Biblically required and there are writings that explain it, citing the applicable Bible verses. Perhaps the most succinct is in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXX Of Church Censures (Scripture citations are included).

To apply the idea to career choice, imagine if a local pimp wanted to join the congregation - and continue running his prostitution business while a member. A Scripturally-based Church would ultimately excommunicate a member who refused to disengage from that business once found out. A less dramatic example might be something like Planned Parenthood, perhaps working with their computer systems. Even though the congregant was simply doing IT work, PP is an organization that's diametrically opposed to the Word of God. I would certainly never consider working for them as an employee, and even as an independent consultant that somehow found myself working for them via some subcontracting arrangement, etc., I'd still promptly leave. Most companies, of course, do not fall into the category of their primary product, service, mission, etc., being squarely in opposition to God's Law, so this is a rare situation, but one that a Christian should keep in mind - especially as we see more and more publicly-held corporations publicly declaring support of sodomy. The boards of directors are who make these over-arching company policy decisions, so Christians who actually are obedient to Christ should make every effort possible to control MORE boards of directors, therefore reversing the trend in business to reject the Word of God. Of course, at this point, the law is moving in the very same direction, a culmination of decades of effort by financial oligarchs. Interestingly, the financial oligarchs make these - and really all - efforts through BOTH major political parties. Case in point, the Republican Unity Coalition, with David Rockefeller having sat on it's advisory board along with prominent Republicans.

Church discipline is also not about things that many denominations have ADDED to Scripture and declared sins, things like eating too much meat according to some standard they develop, using too much energy "according to them", so-called "social justice", etc., since they are NOT sins defined in Scripture.

Of course, where there is no explicit or implicit Biblical prohibition, men have the freedom to do as they choose. Note the "implicit" prohibition, ergo, we need to follow "the whole counsel of God", that is, study it, since it is not a simple list of do's and dont's.

Your "arguments" may work in a vacuum, but not the world we live in. We can debate indefinitely like Jesus did with the Pharisees, but I'm afraid we'd come to the same conclusion. There is religion, and there is Godliness. They are not the same.

The Bible applies to us living in the world we live in and it remains God's Law Word. Every generation thinks it lives in "modern" times that are "different" or "special" and too often they then start picking and choosing which of God's laws they will abide by and which they will not.

I'm simply pointing out that the Bible does not sanction any group purporting to provide instruction regarding morality other than the pastors of the Church. Of course, that does not preclude people having discussions such as this, but our discussion is not binding or authoritative.

RE: "religion vs. godliness" - I must submit to the Scriptural authority of the Church; this is in the area of doctrine (teaching), and only in the rare cases of Church discipline. If and when Church discipline comes up, I need to admit and repent if in truth I have committed the sin I am confronted with. If I have questions on doctrine, I need to ask the pastor for guidance with my ongoing, lifelong, studies.

The part that folks find difficult is that Biblical teaching is supposed to be our rule and guide in life. So while they may never face Church discipline because they're not comitting grave sins, they have a lot of changes they need to make to bring their life in conformance to the Bible. Rather than make the right changes, they seek out a Church denomination that accepts ungodly habits.

Things like dressing modestly can be turned into an excuse for disobedience to God's Word, when we should simply ADMIT to ourselves when we're not dressing modestly. It's the honesty that folks have trouble with. "Oh, I didn't realize you could see that", etc. The New Testament, of course, does not contain a list of clothing do's and dont's. But a regenerate heart would be striving to please God and make sure that their dress was not enticing others to think sinful thoughts (modest) and at the same as clean and presentable as the situation permitted while not being ostentatious.

There are certainly many other aspects of society where the absence or rejection of Biblical moral law should evoke participatory action from Christians, e.g., movies, business, education, etc.; modest dress is just an example. Sabbath-honoring is significant - how many of us make the Lord's Day a day of sports and fun as soon as Church is over, no to mention those that do not understand that there are 52 Biblical Holy Days per year, no more, no less ? Which is strikingly odd in America, because that's how the Pilgrims started out.

Some refer to Biblical Law as "religion" and opt for a "free-form" lifestyle where they can do as they please, and they say they are "godly" because "their heart's in the right place", etc. But these poor, misguided folks have not read God's Word and taken it to heart, they've read a little and used that as the basis to form their own "religion", i.e., a rule and guide for life of their own making. Often the cruelest lie is the half-truth.

[uncommonsense]

"So it's not a stamp of approval from the Church, but a rejection by the Church of careers devoted to habitual sin."

To extrapolate this comment back to the topic at hand - you are saying that the Scouts practiced "habitual sin"? That's been the topic all along. I've just been probing your suppositions and proclamations using related situations. [not talking about the Scouts under their current gay policy]

"I'm simply pointing out that the Bible does not sanction any group purporting to provide instruction regarding morality other than the pastors of the Church."

I'd like to see that scripture. In fact, you haven't quoted a single scripture, while purporting to hold a superior knowledge of God's intent. But, it's not the first time I've debated with someone espousing men's traditions versus God's clearly articulated will through scripture.

Paul and Peter had the same debate on Gentiles following the Mosaic law and the conclusion was that the Bible is a spiritual book, only understood through the Holy Spirit. The Pharisees and Sadducees interpreted scripture incorrectly because they relied on their own understanding, excluded knowledge from unassociated groups or people, and focused on legalistic interpretations.

Mark 9:38:

"Teacher, said John, "we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us... “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward."

David, while evading King Saul, entered a Holy temple and ate the Shewbread - Luke 6:4

"He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

Eating the Shewbread was a sin according to Mosaic law, but God imparted to David an understanding of the intent as opposed to the mechanics of obeying the law. That's a key point - the reason laws were introduced was to point the believers to God's love and desire vs rote adherence to rules that none at the time understood.

You made a big deal about parents having the primary, if not exclusive, authority for teaching children anything relating to ethics or morality (making whatever Biblical interpretations and judgment necessary). But then, you contend that only ordained church elders can provide any moral instruction. Whichever - that's as narrow of an interpretation as the Levitical priests denying David the sustenance of the Shewbread. That wasn't God's will and neither is your espoused interpretation of basic Christian and moral instruction led by Scout leaders [not deep theology - simply common sense citizenship like honesty, reliability, stewardship, etc.].

While I agree with the vast majority of your discourse, I keep seeing a highly legalistic interpretation of learning, as well as a vacillation between who is responsible.

[PieterCasparzen]

Come now, a father is the head of household, responsible for his family, a pastor is responsible for his congregation.

[PieterCasparzen]

Scouting has purported to teach morals, the example I cited is the Family Life merit badge.

The Boy Scouts have no Scriptural authority to teach what they are teaching in the Family Life merit badge, and the fact that they are teaching the contents of that badge contradicts Biblical doctrine.

Do you know the content of that merit badge ?

I didn’t find the “pamphlet” online, but I found the workbook which contains the questions asked / steps required.

[PieterCasparzen]

Paul and Peter had the same debate on Gentiles following the Mosaic law

The ten commandments still apply. The Book of Proverbs was not contradicted by the New Testament. Etc. Etc.

and the conclusion was that the Bible is a spiritual book, only understood through the Holy Spirit.

While there are mysteries that exceed human understanding within the Bible, the fundamental moral laws it contains are quite clear. There is no verse where Peter and Paul throw up their "intellectual hands" and declare that God's moral laws are a mystery that can be safely ignored.

We know what we read in Acts 21:

"20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication."

I like this from the Henry commentary:

"The request of James and the elders of the church at Jerusalem to Paul, or their advice rather, that he would gratify the believing Jews by showing some compliance with the ceremonial law, and appearing publicly in the temple to offer sacrifice, which was not a thing in itself sinful; for the ceremonial law, though it was by no means to be imposed upon the Gentile converts (as the false teachers would have it, and thereby endeavoured to subvert the gospel), yet it was not become unlawful as yet to those that had been bred up in the observance of it, but were far from expecting justification by it. It was dead, but not buried; dead, but not yet deadly. And, being not sinful, they thought it was a piece of prudence in Paul to conform thus far. Observe the counsel they give to Paul herein, not as having authority over him, but an affection for him."

In addition to Acts 21, of course we have all sorts of books in the New Testament which exhort ALL followers of Christ to be obedient to him in regards to moral law, as in Galatians 5:

"18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

It is eminently clear: doing those works of the flesh results in the doers of them NOT inheriting the kingdom of God.

The Pharisees and Sadducees interpreted scripture incorrectly because they relied on their own understanding, excluded knowledge from unassociated groups or people, and focused on legalistic interpretations.

None of the moral laws given in the Old Testament were abrogated - Jesus' own words on the subject are perfectly clear.

Ceremonial laws, e.g., the sacrificial system, for believers in Christ, would become a false practice since it would imply insufficiency of Christ's perfect sacrifice. Christ is our sacrificial lamb, the Lamb of God.

As I always point out, the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Hebrews address many questions regarding the Old Testament.

You selected out Mark 9:38, dealing with, in very brief terms, unity amongst different groups of believers with different interpretations of doctrine, but then attempt to use that to make the much broader claim that God-given moral laws are abrogated. While we do perhaps have a doctrinal difference there, if I understand you correctly, and we should try to have unity despite the difference, the moral law is an essential part of Scripture. Thus, if you are attempting to bring the Gospel to someone and tell them God has no requirements of them and you purposely omit...

Romans 6:15 "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid."

from your message, then you'd be telling the poor someone a horrible lie, leading them to believe that all sins are fine, sin all you want, it's no problem. I hope I'm just misunderstanding your position.

Please, I beg you, please read Romans in it's entirety with the Matthew Henry commentary. You can find it on biblegateway.com and the commentary is at the link "Show resources".

We make a grave mistake by lumping all Old Testament law together, calling it simply "law" and saying that it's flexible.

You basically are describing what is called the "spirit", or intent, of the law versus the "letter of the law". Those situations in moral laws are often more strict, e.g., lusting in one's heart being adultery for one who is married, etc. For the ceremonial laws such as the shewbread, the ceremonial law as a whole points to, or foreshadows, Christ, i.e., that is is primary purpose. David's eating of the shewbread teaches; I like the Henry commentary:

"This was David’s plea, and the Son of David approves it, and shows from it that mercy is to be preferred to sacrifice, that ritual observance must give way to moral duties, and that may be done in a case of an urgent providential necessity which may not otherwise be done."

I'll have to expound on Biblical family roles with citations.

[uncommonsense]

"I'm simply pointing out that the Bible does not sanction any group purporting to provide instruction regarding morality other than the pastors of the Church."

Repeat - I'd like to see that scripture.

You continue to ignore my most salient points from every post. You major on the minor in every way. You drift into obscure, unrelated doctrine. Please go back and read the thread of our discussion.

[uncommonsense]

"Come now, a father is the head of household, responsible for his family, a pastor is responsible for his congregation."

Please put on your glasses. As I said -

"That wasn't God's will and neither is your espoused interpretation of basic Christian and moral instruction led by Scout leaders [not deep theology - simply common sense citizenship like honesty, reliability, stewardship, etc.]."

[uncommonsense]

One more comment - I had a slightly more heated knock-down-drag-out with another Freeper... and this is what he finally said to me:

"And may our Lord Bless you as well. I must accept full responsibility for starting this. Goodness, it feels so much better not to argue! I am so embarrassed about my conduct."

We reconciled admitting we agreed on probably 95% or more of what we were debating. He apologized to me after I said - for the um-teenth time that I agreed with the vast majority of his statements...

Then I apologized to him sincerely, knowing he was a brother in the Lord.

I apologize to you if I've acted in an unchristian manner. I am not trying to be contentious - I feel like God's great commission is under attack from every dimension and, while predictable, it's hard to accept.

So Brother PieterCasparzen, I hope we can reconcile and be friends / brothers.

God Bless!

[PieterCasparzen]

Oh, I consider us reconciled, IMHO, we’re having a theological “debate”.

We’ve used nice words. I think we’re just approaching the subject from different theological perspectives. Unfortunately, most people would find it impossible to understand my position unless they first had a grasp of the theological perspective. Certain doctrinal points that are key to my overall perspective are not discussed here but they are essential to understanding the position I’m describing on this issue.

I need to get some info for you, you’ll need to really go through it, then you’ll perhaps understand the perspective on family I’m working from.

I hope to give you food for thought.

It will take me some time to get to what I need to get to.

No need to apologize brother.

[sleddogs]

As I figured two years ago, it would only be a matter of time before gay leaders would be allowed into scouting.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/be-prepared-gay-men-with-boy-scouts-in-tents/