Category: Pro Life

Posted on

Ontario Liberals to introduce updated version of sex education curriculum pulled in 2010 over religious objections

The new sex ed. curriculum will teach the following. Much of what would be taught would fall under the criminal code of “sexual interference” a few (better) years ago. My quick list below is not in any particular order of importance, and most will be explicit in their instruction, but some will be implied.   The destruction of faith and family has always been a stated goal of Marxist thought, and is certainly a goal of Cultural Marxism.

 

    1. Sex is a personal choice, and the authority of parents and religious faith are secondary to the self.
    1. The human person is autonomous. Nothing should impede personal freedom.
    1. Gender (male/female) is a social construct. The child may change gender at will, and identify with any number of options (see Facebook).
    1. Number in a sexual union is a social construct.
    1. Abortion is not evil, nor something which should bring shame or guilt.
    1. Abortion is acceptable for any reason at any time in a pregnancy, including the abortion of a baby of an undesired sex.
    2. Abortion is a good way to prevent children with birth defects from being born.
    1. Male, Female, single or two are optional and interchangeable in raising children. There is no preference to a stable, male/female parented family.
    2. Divorce is not a tragedy or failure.
    1. Sex before marriage in inevitable, so all precautions must be taken.
    1. Whatever you wish to do with your body is good and wholesome, as long as it is consensual and done safely.
    2. The State owns children.
    3. The State defines what constitutes marriage and family.
    4. The State supersedes religious faith and family.
    5. What is considered taboo now may well be approved by the State at a later time.
    6. Marriage is not for the endurance of the natural life of the married, and any number of unions may occur in a person’s life.
    7. Sodomy is not a sin, nor unnatural, nor a problem to solve. It is as normal and healthy as heterosexuality.
    8. Church and family must defer to State authorities on these matters.

 

What the Educational establishment doesn’t know (or does know and refuses to heed), is that Jesus words are true:

 

Matthew 18:5–6 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

 

 

 

Posted on

And Such WERE Some of You.

1 Corinthians 6:11 (ESV)
“And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

I read long ago a comment by theologian/counsellor Jay Adams. Adams might be called the “Father of Nouthetic Counselling.” His comment was that this passage can be understood by an old joke: “When is a door not a door?” Answer, “When it is ajar.” The humour is that “ajar” sounds like “a jar,” which, of course is not at all what the door is, but in context means that the door is slightly open.

Adam’s point is that if you break it down grammatically you have this: “When is a door not a door?” Answer: “When it is something ELSE.” (i.e., “a jar”). The application to this passage becomes obvious. Paul had just listed sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Don’t misunderstand Paul’s intention here, by thinking that only a few sins and not explicitly naming others that only these sins are under consideration. This list is one of several Pauline lists that act as a synecdoche for a number of others.

So what Adams argues, correctly, I think, is this. “When is a (fill in the blank: unrighteous, sexually immoral, idolater, adulterers, homosexual, thief, greedy person, drunkard, reviler, swindler) not that?” Or, “When is a homosexual not a homosexual, when is a drunkard not a drunkard?” Answer: “When they are something ELSE!”

The answer is verse 11. The unrighteous becomes righteous (based on Christ’s imputed righteousness). But this is not simply to say that the adulterer becomes faithful, or the homosexual becomes heterosexual, or the drunk becomes sober; a person can be all these things and be every bit as unrighteous. There is SOMETHING ELSE.

1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

That “something else” is a man washed (regenerated, Titus 3:5) ,sanctified (made holy), justified (made righteous by another, and that other is Christ).

The force of the verb, “were” is that those behaviours were the customary habits of the person prior to being washed, sanctified, and justified. When one turns to Christ for salvation, these things no longer describe what a person is, but rather, what that person was.

A person who is a Christian is no longer identified by the sins of their rebellion. For this reason, we cannot encourage a Christian to identify with a sin as a part of that nature, when that nature has been killed. One might say, “I was once a drunkard,” but if one is no longer a drunkard, because they are something else, they are no drunkard. I know AA disagrees, but unless a man is found in Christ, he is simply a dry alcoholic.

We must not truncate the Gospel by leaving any part of our lives outside of the God’s justification and sanctification. We are not what we were; we are something else. This is why, to answer a question in another post, is homosexuality a salvation or holiness issue. The answer for this, and all rebellion against God, is YES.