Antinomianism: Noun 1. The theological doctrine that by faith and God's grace a Christian is freed from all laws (including the moral standards of the culture). (TheSage)
From Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.:
For Clark Whitten (and thus for Alan Chambers) you "get grace," you understand it, when you can say to yourself that you are free to commit any sin without any consequences in terms of one's relationship with God. That is what liberty is, he says. But 1 John repeatedly states that if you walk in darkness, keep on sinning as a defining feature of your life, are not keeping God's commands, love "the world" with its lusts, as a way of life do not do what is right, or hate your brother, you have no partnership with Christ, his atoning blood does not continue to cleanse your sins, you are from the devil rather than from God, the truth is not in you, you do not remain in Christ and God, you are not in the light, the love of the Father is not in you, you have not come to know God, you remain in death and have not transferred to life, you do not love God, and you have no basis for reassuring your heart that you belong to Christ. You are, in short, a liar.
Source: "Time for a Change of Leadership at Exodus?" Alan Chambers Assures "Gay Christians" That Unrepentant Homosexual Practice Is No Barrier to Salvation ... among Other Gospel Distortions and Bad Moves. By Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.
Exodus International is a mess now with Alan Chambers in charge. He is more than flirting with danger. There's some bad stuff underlying all of these recent changes. He's slipping or planning to or feeling that he's going to and doing some mad scrambling while the liar is working within. I can't imagine it's anything else -- cherry picking and twisting to make excuses.
He's heard all of this before though, right? He has to have heard all of this and just chosen to ignore everything, even Jesus's own words. Could he possibly have not heard it? Has he not read the Bible? Has he not even read the Gospels?
Well, he needs to read it. He actually needs to be called to respond pretty much point-by-point. He needs to show people where Jesus supports his claims.
He won't be able to do that, of course, which is the whole point in putting it right to him: put up or shut up or, better yet, turn and repent. That's what we all really want.
Why? Here's part of why:
LGBT activists declared what we have long suspected: if SB 1172 becomes law in California, they intend to introduce similar legislation in all 49 other states
Some of these same activists also made it clear that restrictions on professionals are just a starting point, and they will not be satisfied until all religious beliefs against homosexual behavior are suppressed.
That's from NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality).
Alan Chambers is playing right into that. It couldn't be more anti-Christ. Children who have been homosexually raped won't be able to receive professional mental healthcare in California because it might "harm" them. Why are we letting homosexual fascist run the show? Are the powers that be becoming more and more homosexual? It's beginning to look that way, isn't it.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)