A Letter to Pro-Life Crisis Center Director

A Letter to Pro-Life Crisis Center Director

A Letter to Pro-Life Crisis Center Director

Hello Marcia,

In light of the recent Planned Parenthood video, I am about to write a blog about my experience at Life’s Choices. The purpose of the blog is two-fold. First, to encourage people to get involved with efforts that provide practical help with abortion alternatives and an atmosphere of love and acceptance for those who choose not to make use of those alternatives. Second, to admonish the conservative Christian community for hypocrisy — being too busy or too fearful or too whatever to seriously compare their pro-life beliefs with their supposedly “pro-life” doctrines.

Also, please be aware that this message is a blog to introduce the blog post described in the first paragraph.

Put yourself back in the year 2010 for a moment. I told you that I needed to adjust my schedule to a fill-in position at Life’s Choices because of my new job (truth), and I ultimately decided to end my volunteer activities there because I was moving to Orlando (truth), but there was another truth that I kept to myself, that is, the reason I didn’t find a way to overcome those obstacles to continue volunteering at Life’s Choices.

You told me to hand out little business cards that warned against eternal torment in hell. You also included on your forms that I completed and signed a little check box to say we had a conversation about salvation (which, of course, included handing these ladies one of these cards). I found it very suspicious that this would be required of me after having expressed to the leadership at my church my rejection of the doctrine of eternal torment. I suspected that just as spiritual police had made life hell for me at NorthPointe, perhaps they were trying to make life hell for you, as well, since you had not “fired” me yet.

You and the other women there were a lifeline of love and acceptance to me during a time when so many others either completely rejected me and kicked me to the curb or sat by silently as those in power became more and more abusive toward me.

Now that some time has passed, and I have considered everything completely, I have come to the understanding that I likely would have found a way to continue at Life’s Choices if I were not expected to push this eternal torment in hell doctrine.

I complied. Sort of. I gave the card and checked the box, but I also told these women that I was required to give them the card and that I personally, did not agree with that version of the hell doctrine. I shared the plan of salvation with them in which Jesus actually IS the Savior of all, of how He succeeds in His mission to seek and save the lost — including women who have abortions.

I longed to share my experiences with you, but I was afraid of even more shunning and spiritual abuse.

Now, however, I can tell you the story of how their hearts melted right before my eyes, how they recognized the value and dignity of every human life, either expressing their decision to choose life or their resolve to reconsider having an abortion. I saw the difference between women who heard a message of hope that may disappoint and women who heard a message of hope that does not fail, and I knew I was saying exactly what God wanted them to hear.

But I also felt like a liar.

Because you were imagining in those private conversations with abortion-minded women, I was either complying with the doctrine or pretending to.

I simply expressed everything as you or the spiritual police would have, handed them the card, and then burst that bubble of fear with what I had recently discovered about God’s intentions toward the human race. I explained that believers, just like not-yet-believers, are screwed up people with screwed up ideas, but the Spirit of God could help all of us sift through all the bullshit and discover Him as He really is.

Do you remember calling me to tell me that the woman who had had four abortions already and was planning to have another came by Life’s Choices to introduce her baby? She was one of those whose heart melted in front of me. This happened because of the love of God evident in our conversation. I can look back without regret.

Having said all of this, I have a pointed question for you. I am genuinely sorrowful to pose it, because I know that you walk a fine line, getting most of your financial support from a bunch of local churches that are not unified in doctrinal positions. And how you answer may have some impact for or against that financial support. (The sorrow comes because believers should never give or withhold financially over doctrines when lives are at stake.) Please understand I must ask this question in order to write the blog presenting Life’s Choices accurately — neither throwing it under the bus nor presenting it as some kind of saintly organization incapable of error.

You see, in the blog I am about to write, I would like to clarify that I left Life’s Choices before Life’s Choices had a chance to “fire” me. In a recent blog post, I encouraged County Clerks who oppose gay marriage, instead of resigning their positions, to stay put and refuse to complete the paperwork. This is similar to what I did at NorthPointe. I stayed put, even though I knew I would get fired, because getting fired demonstrated the level of opposition toward those who reject eternal torment that exists in many churches today. Believers need to be aware of the lengths their leaders will go to in order to protect this doctrine. I did not do the same thing at Life’s Choices. God didn’t give me the emotional fortitude to persevere through it, so I didn’t. Perhaps He was also protecting you, because he knows your intentions are good and your work is so important.

In case you hadn’t noticed, His light is beginning to shine brighter and brighter. Things previously hidden are now becoming exposed. Uncomfortable conversations are being placed on the table for discussion with increasing frequency. Life’s Choices (and its supporting churches) need to speak up now.

My question is: If I had been completely candid with you then, as I am now, about what kind of conversations were happening between me and abortion-minded women — would you have permitted me to continue as a peer counselor at Life’s Choices?

Please tell me that in the blog I am about to write, I can say that it is not a requirement for Life’s Choices peer counselors to believe and teach eternal torment.

The not-yet-believing world is paying attention.

Please note, I do not oppose gay marriage. I believe that each one of us is accountable to God for our decisions, and that it is not my place to decide whether two people should get married. Just as I would not want someone to prevent or delegitimize my marriage to Tim, I think others should be treated with the same dignity. Wouldn’t it be a beautiful thing for the LGBTQ community to demonstrate tolerance toward those who would have trouble sleeping at night because of a crisis of conscience over dissonance between their moral convictions and fulfilling their job requirements? 


  • Stephen Helbig July 17, 2015 at 3:31 pm

    Even God has shown thee oh man, that “LIFE”, (that zoe kinda Life), does not come by law, nor legislation, (see Old Testament vanished away). ~ Moreover It is by His Agape LOVE that one wins “the victory”, (and as Jesus stated the gates of hell (“hades”) will not prevail) ~ YES as you astutely point out Alice, the not-yet-believing world is paying attention and I am glad in like manner to share the good news with you ~ where indeed the Spirit of God desires to “help all sift through all the BS and discover Him as He really is”.

  • Lanny A. Eichert July 17, 2015 at 5:34 pm

    Alice, can’t you, from reading what you just wrote, understand you performed as a liar at Life’s Choices and blamed God for not giving you the fortitude to do truly? You justify being a liar at God’s expense. God made you be a liar, you said. Now you are trying to justify yourself by A Letter to Pro-Life Crisis Center Director, Marcia. You certainly are an habitual BIG FAT LIAR.

    Stephen, you are a partaker with Alice in her sins.

    • Lanny A. Eichert July 17, 2015 at 5:58 pm

      What’s worse, Alice, is after four months of Moses’ and Elijah’s conversation on the Mount of Transfiguration you haven’t admitted the truth that they ruin your Universal Reconciliation heresy and prove Everlasting Torment. You’re still trying to push an unjustifiable heresy as supposed truth. Why are you thinking it is loving to tell people who are about to drink poison that is okay to do so? Lies are the devil’s poison straight from the pit of hell and the Garden of Eden. UR is the devil’s lie from the start in the Garden and you are still pushing it. Doesn’t it mean anything to you that you’re contrary to the wisdom of centuries of orthodoxy? Little mid-life Alice knows better than centuries of better educated men who read the Holy Bible in Hebrew and Greek without the aids of modern technology. They read and studied by sunlight and candlelight instead of entertaining themselves with gadgets. They loved God’s church, unlike you who despise it and refuse the communion of the Lord’s Supper. Your type are ruthlessly self-absorbed and that’s the folks who you’ve gathered about yourself. Lovers of themselves, certainly not lovers of the Truth. You all have made your own god after your love fantasy. You won’t nor can get real until you kick UR out the window and embrace ET.

    • Lanny A. Eichert July 17, 2015 at 6:09 pm

      Zechariah 13: 8 & 9
      And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.

      Alice, the text shows 2/3 die and ONLY 1/3 go through remedial fire to be purged. Even here your UR is ruined.

      • Lanny A. Eichert July 17, 2015 at 7:05 pm

        Alice, notice the NUMBERS. What do they tell you? God didn’t specify exactly 66.7% were not worthy of recovery. He randomly determined that number would die without a remedial opportunity. By grace He chose to save the remaining 33.3%. God just seems to have this “thing” about thirds in the Bible. It proves His sovereignty to make choices. He did NOT choose to save everybody and that should be obvious to every Bible reader including YOU. Now why aren’t you getting it? You stubbornly refuse to give up your emotions to the truth.
        Alice, face the fact that the Enlightenment is man’s work, not God’s. It is rationalism, not Bible. It is the foundation of the liberal church. The liberal church is a social club with Jesus Christ outside its doors. That’s why I asked if you, your mom, and Mary remember singing in the Presbyterian Church the hymn, O Jesus, Thou Art Standing, by William W. How, 1823-1897. As long as you deny Everlasting Torment, Jesus is outside the door: He hasn’t entered. He can only enter by individual personal invitation. The congregation cannot invite Him into the congregation. He only comes into the church through the hearts of individual persons. That’s why the third stanza is in error. That’s also why the church needs to limit its membership to ONLY believers and all who cease to believe the creeds must be put out of the church, even excommunicated. That’s by definition. The church is the Body of Christ and nothing but the Body. 1 Corinthians 6: 15 shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 1 Corinthians 6: 10 DBY neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor abusive persons, nor the rapacious, shall inherit the kingdom of God. These are forbidden membership by definition. They also perish forever in the Lake of Fire without remedy. God has chosen His Elect and those He will not fail to save. All the rest die without hope and experience Everlasting Torment. That’s why you need to reconsider, because you are an unbeliever headed for hell and the Lake of Fire forever.

    • Alice Spicer July 17, 2015 at 10:52 pm

      Withholding truth is not the same as lying. They didn’t ask. I didn’t volunteer the information.

      • Lanny A. Eichert July 18, 2015 at 1:06 am

        Now that’s self-deception, if ever I saw one. You lived a lie, Alice.

      • Lanny A. Eichert July 18, 2015 at 1:22 am

        See, Alice, how your insanity breeds another insanity. It won’t fly in a court of law. It is habitual with you. Hypocrisy !!! You pretended to be and do what you weren’t. And under their reputation.

        • Alice Spicer July 18, 2015 at 1:57 am

          No, not under their reputation. I made it clear that my personal views were not in agreement with the doctrine of Life’s Choices. Ironically, the success of the ministry there was better off for it.

          Think about it, Lanny. What is the goal of a faith-based, pro-life pregnancy crisis center? To cross the doctrinal t’s and dot the doctrinal i’s?

          How can you even begin to enter into a pro-life conversation when you just got done writing, “The only ‘good gay’ is a dead one.”?! Take the log out of your eye, man.

          • Lanny A. Eichert July 18, 2015 at 9:45 am

            Alice, you were required to do the job ACCORDING TO THEIR STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES AND YOU VIOLATED THEM. That’s living and performing a lie. You were untruthful in performance. Your standard obviously is “the ends justifies the means” and if your honesty suffers, so be it. You live the standard of the world. You know you were wrong and you quit before you were fired. That you admitted and now you’re seeking justification of your falsified actions. You lived a big fat lie and look what you are doing about it.

            Romans 3: 4 let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

            You’re a big fat liar, Alice, and doomed for hell.

            Revelation 21: 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

            You have NOT been born again resulting in justification and regeneration. You don’t have a new heart with God’s Law written in it that embraces homosexuality as an abomination to God, that hates homosexuality as God hates it, that knows homosexuals will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God, that knows they will be punished with everlasting fire without remedy, without hope.

            Get to your dad’s church and learn the truths of Fundamental Christianity. Stop rebelling in your heart. Ask your dad to help you believe the right stuff.

  • Lanny A. Eichert July 17, 2015 at 9:41 pm

    Alice, nobody is asking you to legitimize gay marriages. By definition they are delegitimized. Who is the husband and who is the wife? Such are not identifiable in a so called gay marriage. The licenses have to have those terms changed to simply spouse, and its definition is husband OR wife. That’s a wake up call to recognize how illegitimate it is to try to fit marriage to same sex couples. It defies definition. The question remains who is the husband and who is the wife? One person is not able to be both. You can’t marry yourself. Let’s be reasonable. There’s no DIGNITY for the LGBTQ community: they are all perverts and deserve ridicule and shame. They need to be MADE to own their shame.

    But you will NOT be reasonable, I see. You will not be reasonable about Moses and Elijah ruining your Universal Reconciliation heresy by denouncing UR, will you? Insanity begets insanity.

    • Lanny A. Eichert July 18, 2015 at 1:09 am

      R BAD 4
      (The only “good gay” is a dead one.)

  • Mary Vanderplas July 18, 2015 at 4:48 am

    It’s wonderful that your ministry among women dealing with unintended pregnancies was used by God to bring hope and healing in the midst of their struggle and to save the lives of the unborn by helping these likely frightened, desperate women to know that there were real alternatives to having an abortion.

    I have trouble with any ministry to the hurting that attaches a religious agenda to being with people in their suffering. Presenting a (fundamentalist) Christian evangelistic message to these women, who were struggling with the decision whether to terminate a pregnancy, is, in my view, a violation of their freedom of religion and a poor witness to the God who loves people as they are and embraces them with healing compassion apart from any agenda of indoctrinating them in the Christian faith. If any of the women had been of another faith – say, Jewish or Muslim – or of no faith, they would have been as deserving of a compassionate companion to help them deal with the struggle of making this life choice while at the same time having their faith or lack of faith respected as were those who leaned toward affirming Christianity.

    While I don’t necessarily think that it was wrong of you to share with them about the ever-gracious God revealed in Jesus Christ, I think that your actions of accepting them without judgment and of giving them hope by letting them know that they didn’t have to resort to having an abortion likely spoke more powerfully of a loving God than any words you could have said. Any ministry that would terminate a counselor who is helping women to face this life situation courageously and responsibly because the counselor refused to propagate the doctrine of eternal torment is, in my view, totally out of sync with God’s agenda for the world he loves.

    • Lanny A. Eichert July 18, 2015 at 9:54 am

      Mary, you don’t believe the God of the perfect literal Holy Bible, but have manufactured your own god according to your liking. Your god is a lie, making you a promoter of lies. Your end is given in the Revelation 21: 8 as I quoted Alice above.

      • Mary Vanderplas July 19, 2015 at 5:35 am

        Why? Because your teeny weeny, us-them, right-wrong, good person-bad person fundamentalist worldview has no room for respecting people whose beliefs differ from yours…… Uh, I don’t think so.

        • Lanny A. Eichert July 19, 2015 at 11:38 am

          Mary, God is narrow:

          Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

          Can’t you read: BUT BY ME.

          God’s way is LIMITED to the Jesus way ONLY.

          • Mary Vanderplas July 20, 2015 at 5:06 am

            Yes, Christ is the only name under heaven by which God’s rebel creation is saved from sin. But the Bible testifies also to a universal grace that enables even those who do not know Christ to know and pursue the good and true (e.g., John 1:9). That there is truth and goodness to be found in other religions of the world is hard to deny. Moreover, the gracious God revealed in Christ loves all, including those who subscribe to other faiths; there is no “us-them,” only those who know themselves to be recipients of a great grace in Christ and those who do not (yet) believe the gospel but who nonetheless are chosen and beloved.

            • Lanny A. Eichert July 20, 2015 at 3:50 pm

              The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup. {Psalm 11: 5 & 6}

              The LORD here is the same gracious God revealed in Christ in the New Testament portion of God’s perfect literal Holy Bible which you don’t believe.

              • Lanny A. Eichert July 20, 2015 at 7:34 pm

                Mary, Jesus Christ the same YESTERDAY, and to day, and for ever. Yesterday His soul HATED the wicked, today His soul still HATES the wicked, for ever His soul WILL STILL HATE the wicked. They will always have their portion stated in Psalm 11: 6; snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest in their cup.

                • Mary Vanderplas July 23, 2015 at 6:04 am

                  The God who is love in himself loves beyond telling every one of his human creatures. What he hates is everything wicked, everything that defaces his good creation and dehumanizes the people he loves, everything that opposes his loving purposes for the world he made and redeemed.

                  • Lanny A. Eichert July 23, 2015 at 11:38 am

                    Mary, that “everything” in all three cases is human beings. “What he hates is everything wicked, everything that defaces his good creation and dehumanizes the people he loves, everything that opposes his loving purposes for the world he made and redeemed.” God hates wicked people. God hates defacing people. God hates opposing people.

                    • Mary Vanderplas July 24, 2015 at 5:43 am

                      Yep, God loves those he chooses to save – which is everyone.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert July 24, 2015 at 9:55 am

                      Mary, you, too, are of your father, the devil, since you believe that. What’s the purpose of hell? Your god becomes an enjoyer of torture, because he saves so few in mortality, meaning only a few escape hell, while the majority are left to his torture.

            • Lanny A. Eichert July 22, 2015 at 1:32 am

              Mary, you wrote, “That there is truth and goodness to be found in other religions of the world is hard to deny.” Have you read Philippians 3: 4 – 8, Paul’s assessment of his religion before he was saved, Especially verse 8? You can’t find any more accurate religion than the Jewish religion: Romans 3: 2 “because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” Verse 8 reads, “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung.” Rubbish, garbage, refuse. Besides that Isaiah 64: 6 “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.” The Biblical assessment of any religion is worthlessness. Think about it, Mary, all it does is confuse the issues necessary to get saved. You are confused, point blank confused.

              • Lanny A. Eichert July 22, 2015 at 1:49 am

                Remember Mary, that Paul wrote by INSPIRATION OF GOD, God-breathed words. It is very easy to deny that there’s any truth and goodness in other world religions when you have the “divine viewpoint” from God’s perfect literal Holy Bible instead of the “human viewpoint” from the wisdom of men. That’s what makes you wrong and me right. You’re not saved and I am. The same goes for Alice and most, if not all, her friends. Only God’s saints have wisdom, everybody else is foolish; and like the foolish virgins without oil, they will be locked out forever to perish in everlasting fire without remedy.

              • Mary Vanderplas July 23, 2015 at 5:50 am

                Paul wasn’t deprecating Judaism; he was simply saying that he considered as loss, garbage, what was in fact worth a great deal. Because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ, he was willing to give up even that which was of tremendous value to him. There is no hint here of his putting down the religion in which he had been steeped. Paul was wise enough to know that there is much truth and goodness to be found in Judaism, particularly in the Law summarized in the command “Love God and your neighbor.”

                • Lanny A. Eichert July 23, 2015 at 11:57 am

                  Mary, this is God speaking, not Paul; and He is not speaking of outgrowing childishness, but of rubbish, useless rubbish; a humanly perverted version of grace-denying works religion of the Pharisees. Abraham was justified by faith, not Judiasm, not religion, but by grace. God says throughtout Scripture that religion is worthless; salvation is by God’s grace ALONE.

                • Lanny A. Eichert July 23, 2015 at 12:15 pm

                  Mary, you should know better than “Love God and your neighbor” because that is naturally impossible to do since it is an absolute. God’s saints are NOT under the Mosaic Law. Jesus died for the sins under the Law and His saints are reckoned dead to the Law with Him in their union with His death and resurrection. Haven’t you read Romans 6: 1 – 8: 39? Galatians 2: 16 – 21 God’s saints are not under any kind of “law” since the article, “the” does not preceed the noun. God’s saints are governed only by the Holy Spirit. Law-works subverts Holy Spirit living and therefore are not preparatory, but harmful. You don’t know these things, do you?

                  • Mary Vanderplas July 24, 2015 at 5:47 am

                    That Christians are dead to the law doesn’t mean that the law is dead. Haven’t you read Romans 7:12? Paul nowhere dismisses the value of the law or disparages his former way of life in Judaism.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert July 24, 2015 at 10:08 am

                      Mary, did I write the Law is dead or did I write the saint is dead? Read me correctly. The saint is dead (to the Law). I quite correctly thought you don’t know these things because you are not saved. The Law is to be used correctly to condemn all men and show them they need to be saving. The Law is the ministry of death, Second Death, hell and the Lake of Fire, where you’re going to be if you don’t embrace Fundamentalism.

                    • Mary Vanderplas July 25, 2015 at 5:06 am

                      What you wrote – which started this discussion – is that Judaism is worthless, that there is no truth or goodness to be found in it. You attempted to support your false claim by appealing to Philippians 3, contending that the apostle Paul here repudiates his former life in Judaism. I countered that Paul did nothing of the kind, that in fact he held in high regard his religious heritage. You also implied that the law is of no value because it can’t be obeyed apart from the working of the Holy Spirit within. I countered that the law is not dead. Yes, the law, perverted by sin, is an instrument of condemnation. Yes, the death of Jesus frees us from the law’s power to enslave and condemn. And yes, efforts to make the law the ground of human righteousness are a perversion of the gospel. But none of this means that the law itself is of no value, that it is sinful. Contrary to your assertions, Paul doesn’t disparage either the law itself or the religion in which he was raised.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert July 25, 2015 at 5:15 am

                      Mary, the Law is holy and good, but it is for sinners, not for saints.
                      Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine {1 Timothy 1: 9 & 10} And Universal Reconciliation is contrary to sound doctrine.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert July 25, 2015 at 5:21 am

                      Alice, do you see that “for them that defile themselves with mankind” are homosexuals and the Law of God is for them to know their CONDEMNATION, and that means they will surely burn in hell for not “going straight.” The church consists of only saints and no homosexual is a saint.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert July 25, 2015 at 2:06 pm

                      Mary, the law, UNperverted by sin, is an instrument of condemnation. All of Saul’s efforts to “live the Law” were garbage. His whole pre-conversion life in Judiasm was garbage. His religion was worthless in converting him to Christ because it valued Law-keeping which is contrary to faith. Judaism kept a vail over his face and kept him from seeing Christ clearly.

                      And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. {1 Corinthians 3: 13 – 15}

                      All religions are “stumbling blocks” and “vails” to faith, just as yours is and just as Alice’s is. Your liberal “Christianity” prevents you from acknowledging the purity of God’s Holy Bible, so that you are not willing to believe the spelling of every word of it is exactly what God wants us to believe. Alice commits to “age-during” like a mad lady while refusing the whole. What inconsistency just like her father, the devil, mixes truth with error. Truth plus error is still ERROR that delivers a person to hell and the Lake of Fire.

                    • Mary Vanderplas July 26, 2015 at 6:02 am

                      Paul repudiated law-keeping as grounds for boasting. But he didn’t repudiate the law as such. See Romans 3:31. Indeed, Paul goes out of his way to affirm that the law itself is not sinful, that it is the law controlled by sin that enslaves and condemns those who try to keep it (Romans 7:7-25).

                      The text you cite from 2 Corinthians isn’t, as you falsely portray, an indictment of Judaism, much less an indictment of all of the world’s religions. Paul is simply saying here that Israel failed to see the true meaning of their scriptures, which from his perspective as a believer point to Christ. He is not saying that the religion of Israel is bad, of no value, or a barrier to receiving truth from God.

                      To assert that Paul’s “whole pre-conversion life in Judaism was garbage” reflects an arrogant stupidity of the highest magnitude – and totally distorts Paul’s own perception of his life before coming to know Christ.

                      Here you go again: racing around the Bible trying desperately to find verses to “prove” your false claims. Ah, the follies of fundamentalism…..

                    • Lanny A. Eichert July 27, 2015 at 1:42 am

                      Mary, twice now: you’ve made the same mistake. I showed you the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless {1 Timothy 1: 9}. You apparently don’t know this. The ONLY function of God’s Law is condemnation of the whole human race as preparatory individual personal understanding to being saved by grace through faith. God’s Law is not a standard by which to live your life. In Romans 7: 11 it is SIN that deceived, not God’s Law. It is SIN that enslaves, not the Law of God. Sin gets its power from the wrong understanding and use of God’s Law: believing it to be the Rule for life. That is the vail over the heart of the religious, blinding them { Corinthians 3: 13 – 15}. That’s typical of all religions and that’s why all religions are worthless garbage, because they are rules-centered. You’ve heard, rules are for breaking. Why? Because they cannot be perfectly kept by sinners. Have you always, without exception, kept the speed limits driving your vehicle? The rules, the laws, are not bad, just the expectation of perfect obedience to them. That’s the common denominator of religions which make all religions worthless garbage. They all try to earn salvation by performance of rules. Biblical Christianity says, no, only by faith, believing what God has said according to the spelling of every word of His Holy Bible. See Romans 4. Abraham is “the father” of all those who believe correctly. You’re not one of Abraham’s children, because you are not willing to trust every spelt word of the Bible. You think you can keep the Law by the power of the Holy Spirit, but you are wrong. The only way to “keep the Law” is by not trying, but just by being lead by the Holy Spirit without even thinking of the Law, trusting the Holy Spirit is holy and His leadership will result in conformance to God’s holy Law. God’s saints are not under the Law nor any law. God’s saints are free from all laws. God’s saints are under the direction of God’s Holy Spirit for holy living without any law. See, you don’t know these things because you aren’t saved and never will be without trusting every spelt word.

                    • Mary Vanderplas July 27, 2015 at 5:47 am

                      The original function of the law was life-giving (see Deuteronomy 30). It was only after sin got ahold of it that it became death-dealing, enslaving and condemning those who tried to live by it. Sin didn’t get its power from the law; sin worked through the law to deceive and destroy. This is what Paul is saying in Romans 7:7ff. In Romans 3:31, Paul affirms in no uncertain terms that faith in Christ is compatible with the law properly understood not as the means of gaining acceptance by God but as living in a way appropriate to those who have been redeemed by grace. Matthew’s Jesus says the same thing in 5:17-19. The law IS the rule for life, but it is not an enslaving, condemning force, but rather the liberating law of the Spirit of life (Romans 8:2).

                      The fact that rules cannot be perfectly kept doesn’t make them any less valid or important. Yes, the Spirit is the guide for life in Christ, for conformity to God’s will, but to say that there is no law for God’s saints is to contradict what the scripture plainly teaches (again, see Romans 3:31 and Matthew 5:17-19). In more than one instance in the New Testament, Paul flatly rejects an antinomian mentality.

                      Paul recognized his life as a zealous keeper of the law and seeker after righteousness as something of value even while he acknowledged the surpassing worth of knowing Christ. To dismiss Judaism and other religions as “worthless garbage” is fundamentalist horse shit. It’s no wonder that so many people who were raised in a fundamentalist tradition have run screaming in the other direction. Your arrogant dismissal of everyone who believes differently from you and your vain attempts to make God a prisoner of the Christian church are sickening to the nth degree.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert July 27, 2015 at 2:20 pm

                      Mary, “It was only after sin got ahold of it”. That’s the third time you’ve made this mistake. PEOPLE are gotten ahold by SIN. The Law of God is not gotten ahold of by sin. What is this foolish notion you are trying to set forth? And WHEN did sin get ahold of the Law? WHY did Moses smash the first set of tables of Stone upon which God, Himself, wrote the Decalogue? What is the chronology? You should know.

                      The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. {1 Corinthians 15: 56 KJV}
                      and the sting of the death is the sin, and the power of the sin the law {1 Corinthians 15: 56 YLT}
                      Now the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin the law {1 Corinthians 15: 56 DBY}
                      The word is δύναμις dynamis inherent power

                      Mary, you don’t seem to know God’s saints are free from death, sin, and law. Those three don’t exist in resurrection life lived here and now by saints in mortality. You’re ignorant because you’re not saved Fundamentally.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert July 27, 2015 at 6:27 pm

                      Mary the Law-keeping is exposed in Romans 7: 15 (my explanation added)
                      that (sin) which I do I allow not: what (righteousness) I would, that do I not; but what I hate (sin), that do I.
                      When the commandment says “no”, I say “yes” and when the commandment says “do”, I say “no”. My sinful nature thwarts the Law. That’s normal for the person trying to live by the Law. It is self-defeating due to human nature. The Law cannot be lived. God knew that when He gave the Law, because He gave it for the purpose of condemning the whole human race. Religion tries to teach betterment by rule-keeping and it does not work. God, the Holy Spirit, knows the purpose of the Law is condemnation, so He will NOT help anybody who is trying to keep the Law. That would be counterproductive to the purpose of God for the Law. If anything, God, the Holy Spirit, is reproving/convicting the world of sin {John 16: 8 & 9}. A listening soul is driven to Romans 7: 24 {O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?}, the need of a divine Deliverer {25a}. Law-keeping is total frustration, not a way of life. Since all religions’ bottom lines are rule-keeping, all religion is vain, empty, unfulfilling, useless, worthless, garbage, just as God through Paul’s pen wrote to you to know it.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert July 27, 2015 at 6:36 pm

                      “The body of this death”, dear Mary, is the human body that is trying to live the Law. That body needs deliverance FROM the Law. That body must die with Christ in crucifixion. Galatians 2: 20

                      I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

                      Verse 21
                      I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

                      If life were by Law-keeping Jesus did NOT need to die. Therefore Law-keeping is not a way of life for anybody, and neither is religion.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert July 27, 2015 at 8:08 pm

                      Mary, God’s solution for human sinfulness is not the reformation of the old Adamic human nature by Law-keeping, because any reformation still results in an Adamic human nature refined. That’s just not good enough. God’s solution is death to the Adamic human nature and a new birth {born again} with a new nature of divine character. That’s the new creation of 2 Corinthians 5: 17 & 18. By the new creation, new heart, the saint spontaneously lives an holy life apart from law-keeping because he is led by God’s Holy Spirit into holy perspectives. He has the Law of God written IN his heart, not externally on tablets of stone or printed pages. You have not comprehended this new lfe in Christ as evidence that you have never had it. You are ignorant of the New Birth, as is Alice also, and many of her friends. Your liberal “christianity” lacks radicalism. Biblical Christianity is so radical in that it requires the death of the old self and rebirth of a new man. That’s conversion of which you liberals know nothing.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert July 27, 2015 at 10:50 pm

                      Mary, “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” is not the Mosaic Law, but “the law of sin and death” IS in Romans 8: 2. Verse 3 should have made that abundantly clear to you, but since you are not saved and Holy Spirit taught, you are confused and unenlightened. You needed insight from the Holy Spirit in me to clue you in to that next verse’s impact on its meaning. Us, Fundamentalists, need to teach you, liberals, how to rightly understand God’s Holy Bible, since you can’t do it on your own. That’s why I have counseled Alice to get to her dad’s sending church to learn Biblical truths and realities that she can’t learn among liberals.

                    • Mary Vanderplas July 28, 2015 at 5:26 am

                      This “foolish notion” comes from actually reading the text – you know, the spelt letters blah blah blah – in which Paul says not once but three times in a brief compass that “sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment,” and “sin, working …through what is good” did its destructive work in human life (Romans 7:8, 11, 13). The clear teaching is that the power of sin took control of the law and perverted it so that it became an instrument of condemnation. To ask about chronology is to miss the point Paul is making. The point is that the law itself isn’t sinful; the law itself is holy and good, but was taken over by sin so that the law even provoked sin and brought condemnation.

                      Ah, yes, accuse me of not knowing that Christ has set us free from the law as dominated by the powers of sin and death, even though I’ve affirmed this. What else are you going to do to try to deflect attention from your avoidance of Romans 3:31 and Matthew 5:17-19 – two texts which plainly affirm the law??

                    • Mary Vanderplas July 28, 2015 at 5:28 am

                      Yes, of course, the law is powerless to overcome sin in human life. Yes, of course, God acted in Christ to deliver us from the power of sin and death and to free us from the enslaving, condemning power of the law. But none of this means that the law as the revelation of God’s will for human life is done away with. Fulfilling the law isn’t a matter of rule-keeping to win God’s approval, but of striving to live as God commands in the power of the Spirit in order to experience the fullness of life that God wills for his own. Granted, religions that focus on rule-keeping do not offer the liberation that comes from knowing Christ and being set free to love. But only the arrogant and stupid would contend that these religions are empty and worthless, that they are devoid of all true knowledge of God and all goodness, that God does not help them, etc. The biggest problem with religion is the impulse evinced by religious people to claim certitude and possession of ultimate truth, leading to an exclusivist attitude toward those of other faiths – an impulse and attitude that you routinely demonstrate.

                    • Mary Vanderplas July 28, 2015 at 5:33 am

                      Fulfilling the law doesn’t entail keeping a written set of rules, but choosing to think and live in accordance with the Spirit of God within. But, again, this doesn’t mean that there is no law that believers must live by nor that the original law is nullified.

                    • Mary Vanderplas July 28, 2015 at 5:39 am

                      Save your invitation/urging/threat to submit to fundamentalist teaching for someone else. I prefer to listen to and learn from people who actually study the Bible and wrestle with its meaning (instead of cherry-picking verses to support a preconceived doctrine) and who seek to live the love that is the essence of God’s will for human life.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert July 28, 2015 at 4:19 pm

                      “the power of sin took control of the law and perverted it”, Mary, what kind of logic is this? “The strength {δύναμις dynamis, power} of sin is the law” {1 Corinthians 15: 56}. Substituting “the law” for “the power of sin” IAW 1 Cor. 15: 56, your foolish statement reads “the law took control of the law and perverted it”. That’s nonsense. Sinfully corrupt HUMAN MINDS, like yours, bent, twisted, and distorted God’s law according to their fancy, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures. The Law was the instrument of condemnation before it was even received. You know the chronology you refused to state. Exodus 32’s golden calf and idolatrous fooling around was happening while God was writing the first set of stone tables and God was ready to burn up the whole nation of Israel on the spot. They were braking the First Commandment while it was in the process of being delivered to them. Why do you think I asked WHEN your foolish idea of sin taking ahold of the Law happened? Your foolish idea happened WHILE God was writing the Law for them: from the very beginning of the Law. Therefore it could have NEVER been the rule of life by your own foolish idea. Remember Korah in Numbers 16, how he perverted the Law and intruded into the Priesthood. What did the Israelites say? Exodus 19: 8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. They assumed wrongly that they could live perfectly according to God’s standard. They didn’t and wouldn’t accept the deceitfulness of their own hearts. The Law was given to condemn them and drive them to the sacrifices and a life of faith in the grace of God which those sacrifices pictured. Mary, both in Galatians 3: 10 and in James 2: 10, if you start law-keeping you must keep the WHOLE law and forget grace. If you would receive the grace of God, you must forget law-keeping. Go to Galatians 3. It also tells why the Law. Read it. 5: 1’s yoke of bondage is the Law and verse 3 says if you even get circumcised you must keep the WHOLE law. In order to avoid the bondage, have absolutely NOTHING to do with law-keeping. It is worthless.

                    • Mary Vanderplas July 29, 2015 at 4:12 am

                      Just keep talking, hoping that no one will notice that you’re avoiding Romans 3:31 and Matthew 5:17-19 and ignoring the plain meaning of Paul’s words, thrice-repeated, in Romans 7: that sin perverted the good commandment of God. What a sham your profession to believe every word of the Bible is.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert July 29, 2015 at 3:37 pm

                      Mary, Romans 3 is the “condemning Law” not any rule of life Law. I’ve established the Law as such, not ignored the text. You fail to understand verse 19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY. That’s the established purpose of the Law even in 3: 31.

                      Christ fulfilled the Law on the behalf of God’s saints and as their perfect Substitute. Saints have “the righteousness of God without the law” {Romans 3: 21} imputed to them the moment they believed the right things. Verse 22, “the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe” is Jesus earthly life’s righteous charged to the saints account {2 Corinthians 5: 21}. The saint’s righteousness is without Law-keeping.

                      Both of these things I have insisted, so I have addressed both texts which you pervert due to your liberal human reasoning and bias instead of believing what the Scriptures actually say.

                    • Mary Vanderplas July 30, 2015 at 5:00 am

                      The plain meaning of Romans 3:31 in context is that justification by faith doesn’t mean that the law as such has been abolished or set aside. On the contrary, the law in its original purpose of realizing the will of God in people’s lives remains, and is fulfilled by our living in Christ in the power of the Spirit – not simply obeying a set of rules, but living in a manner appropriate to who we are in Christ. It is not a condemning law that Paul is talking about here; the law has lost its power to condemn by God’s act in Christ. What he is talking about is the law in its original function of revealing and realizing God’s will for human life.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert July 30, 2015 at 6:56 am

                      Mary, the context of verse 31 includes verse 19, the absolute condemnation of the whole human race by the written Mosaic Law. I never wrote that it was abolished or set aside. It STILL functions as the condemnation of the whole human race, its stated purpose in verse 19. When it was given, the race had been bound by the total depravity of sin and you know it is incapable of pleasing God in that state. The carnal man cannot please God by trying to live the Law. He cannot succeed to keep the WHOLE Law. God’s answer to the carnal man is death with Christ and resurrection to NEW life outside the Law by spontaneous obedience to only God’s Holy Spirit. When will you see this? Not until you go the Alice’s dad’s sending church and learn Fundamentalism. So get there and stop agruing with me. You need to be born again like Sean John Dean has been and time’s awaisting, Mary. You may die before that happens if you don’t hurry up. If that happens, that you die before you’re born again, you burn in hell without remedy forever. Don’t delay. Schedule with the pastor and get a jump start. Satan is now pushing you right to the edge and you’re not watching nor feeling the heat. You may slip any moment right over the edge of death and directly into the fire. Go now and learn from them.

                    • Mary Vanderplas July 31, 2015 at 5:07 am

                      Paul isn’t talking in verse 31 about the law dominated by sin and death. He has just affirmed that through Christ’s death God demonstrated his righteousness and justifies the unrighteous by faith. The law has lost its power to enslave and condemn. He is talking here about upholding the law as the revelation of God’s will, the law in its original purpose – which is life in Christ. He is saying what Matthew’s Jesus says in Matthew 5:17-19 – which you continue to avoid addressing. And his thought is echoed in Romans 8:4.

                      When your imagined hell freezes over….. I’m perfectly content – and very grateful – to be Presbyterian and to belong to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

                    • Lanny A. Eichert July 31, 2015 at 9:38 am

                      Mary your “law dominated by sin and death” is not “the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” of Romans 7: 12. You still are placing the responsibility in the right place. The Law is not distorted. The human mind is. Just like Jesus said remarriage is adultery and that’s the holy, just, and good evaluation. Your human mind has distorted remarriage as happiness in the will of God. You call evil good while the Law say the opposite. You’re the perverted one, not the Law of God. No wonder you’re offended by my righteousness. Your mindset is all bent, twisted, and distorted because it is human viewpoint instead of the divine viewpoint given in the spelt words of the Bible.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert August 1, 2015 at 3:20 am

                      Mary, I see then you describe the Law TWO ways: #1) “the law dominated by sin and death” and #2) “law as the revelation of God’s will.” (“isn’t talking in verse 31 about the law dominated by sin and death”). Previously you indicated when first given it wasn’t “dominated by sin and death” but later became “dominated by sin and death … the law in its original purpose.” You are VERY confusing to read. If it suits your argument it is “dominated by sin and death” (Romans 7) and when it suits your argument it isn’t “dominated by sin and death” (Romans 3: 31). Your concept of the Law twists from sinful to holy at your whim.

                      Verse 19 same chapter and context: “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.”

                      Do you know what the “that, ἵνα hina” means and how it is used? Dear girl, it is used to introduce a purpose clause. Justification is by faith, because the Law made everybody absolutely guilty and unable to boast righteousness by Law-keeping. That’s its stated purpose in verse 19 and 31.

                      Galatians 3: 21, 22 if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin
                      Do you see that Law-keeping cannot be “life in Christ”? Law-keeping concludes all under sin: guilty, guilty, guilty.

                      Justification/righteousness must be absolutely divorced from Law-keeping. The two are total opposites. God does the justifying, God does the imputing righteousness and that righteousness is the mortal righteousness of the life of Jesus. Religious man does the Law-keeping and he fails absolutely. I know you know the doctrine of Total Depravity, since it is Reformed doctrine held by Presbyterians. The Law was originally given more than two thousand years after Adam and Eve sinned, so how could you expect totally depraved mankind to keep God’s Law and live? You know better than that, Mary. There’s no way the Law could be the way of life. The way of life has been reserved by God to be the way of faith apart from Law-works. You know that orthodoxy, so why are you twisting it and trying to make more of the Law than God made it to be? CONFUSION of unbelief: not willing to take God at His perfectly spelt words. If you’d only get born-again the Biblical way, you’d know these things. Get to Fundamental Baptist Church and learn how to be saved. Do it ASAP. Otherwise you will perish in your liberal Presbyterianism.

                    • Mary Vanderplas August 1, 2015 at 5:22 am

                      Three times in Romans 7 Paul says that the law, which itself is good and which is not grounds for being accepted by God (chapter 3), has been taken over and corrupted by sin. What offends me about you is your SELF-righteousness – giving evidence of the law being dominated and perverted by sin: you imagine yourself as being perfectly able to do the will of God and therefore entitled to judge and condemn others who are less righteous than you. Try taking your own advice and reading the spelt words of Paul in Romans 7 – at your own risk.

                      I’m done “dialoguing” with you about this. I have nothing more to say.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert August 1, 2015 at 2:44 pm

                      Mary, you never answered who, how, and when the law has been taken over and corrupted by sin. Such an idea no longer allows the law to be holy, and just, and good (verse 12), therefore that idea is corrupt in itself.

                      Sincerely yours,
                      Saint Lanny A. Eichert

            • Lanny A. Eichert July 22, 2015 at 12:10 pm

              Mary, John 1: 9 is not “universal grace that enables even those who do not know Christ to know and pursue the good and true”. It is the remnant of “the image of God” to the extent it has not been further corrupted by sin in the heart of the individual. {Genesis 1: 26 & 27} Even those who claim to have no religion pursue what is esteemed as “the good and true”. It is the nature of the creature to do so. Be careful how many different forms of grace you define.

    • Lanny A. Eichert July 18, 2015 at 8:00 pm

      Mary, while you “don’t necessarily think that it was wrong of you to share with them about the ever-gracious God revealed in Jesus Christ”, yet “Presenting a (fundamentalist) Christian evangelistic message to these women, who were struggling with the decision whether to terminate a pregnancy, is, in my view, a violation of their freedom of religion and a poor witness to the God who loves people as they are and embraces them with healing compassion apart from any agenda of indoctrinating them in the Christian faith.” WHAT makes Alice not necessarily wrong and Fundamentalists violators of their freedom? Is there a difference between “sharing” and “presenting” or is one message right and the other wrong? How do you know which is which?

      • Mary Vanderplas July 19, 2015 at 5:23 am

        The difference is having a religious agenda – presenting the “message of salvation” (or the fundamentalist “turn or burn” distortion of it) in order to win converts to Christianity – versus simply sharing in action and word the love and compassion of God in Jesus Christ with those who are hurting.

        • Lanny A. Eichert July 19, 2015 at 11:40 am

          And Alice doesn’t have an agenda, Mary?

          • Mary Vanderplas July 20, 2015 at 5:08 am

            She shared her faith in the loving God revealed in Jesus Christ, the Savior of all, with those who needed desperately to hear that they are loved and accepted. She also acted for Jesus, the lover and healer of all, by being present with these women in their struggle and accepting them without judging them. She wasn’t pushing any religious agenda, trying to get them to make a Christian confession in an effort to make them “acceptable.”

            • Lanny A. Eichert July 21, 2015 at 3:01 am

              Mary, “She shared her faith” is not an agenda? “She also acted for Jesus” is not an agenda?

            • Lanny A. Eichert July 21, 2015 at 3:09 am

              Mary, she wrote, “I also told these women … that I personally, did not agree with that version of the hell doctrine. I shared the plan of salvation with them in which Jesus actually IS the Savior of all ….” and you don’t call that an agenda?

              • Lanny A. Eichert July 21, 2015 at 3:17 am

                Mary, Alice was a great missionary for the father of lies, her god, the devil and Satan. Her message is “another gospel” from the pit of hell bringing false hope to the stupid and gullible.

              • Mary Vanderplas July 23, 2015 at 5:56 am

                It was only after she had been told that she needed to impose a doctrinal stance that she didn’t agree with that she shared her universalistic beliefs. She didn’t get involved in this ministry with the intent of pushing a religious agenda. Pushing a religious agenda was something the ministry required. Alice’s purpose, as it appears to me, was simply to meet human need as Christ commands followers to do.

                • Lanny A. Eichert July 23, 2015 at 12:20 pm

                  Mary, she sure had an agenda once she got those cards that hit a nerve in her, didn’t she?

                  • Lanny A. Eichert July 23, 2015 at 12:29 pm

                    And that agenda was to oppose the real Gospel and thus work for Satan against God. As I previously wrote, she was Satan’s perfect missionary.

                  • Mary Vanderplas July 24, 2015 at 5:48 am

                    Her “agenda,” as I see it, was not to spread life-squelching fundamentalist crap.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert July 24, 2015 at 9:49 am

                      It surely was to spread her father’s lies, because he, Satan, is the father of lies.

    • Alice Spicer July 19, 2015 at 3:21 pm

      God opens doors for believers to share their faith. I now understand that it’s best not to create your own doors, because it is the Spirit of God that enables a person to believe, in His own time and in His own way, not because we’ve bulldozed a path. I didn’t really understand that back then.

      • Lanny A. Eichert July 19, 2015 at 3:42 pm

        But Alice, you’re not a believer.

      • Mary Vanderplas July 20, 2015 at 5:10 am

        Yes, in God’s time and in God’s way, people come to faith.

        • Lanny A. Eichert July 20, 2015 at 7:41 pm

          For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ORDAINED TO THIS CONDEMNATION, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

  • Kevin July 22, 2015 at 12:02 pm

    Lanny, can you provide us with a definition of a believer? Also, can you succinctly state what the gospel is?

    Thank you in advance

    • Lanny A. Eichert July 22, 2015 at 2:57 pm

      Kevin, the Biblical concept of a believer is a person who, understanding that every word of the Holy Bible is God’s chosen word as spelt, trusts those words literally or figuratively according to context.

      Kevin, the Gospel succinctly on this site is “believe now or burn forever” understanding that all are condemned to burn because of sin, but the few who choose to believe during mortality will have their lives saved in mortality and thereafter.

  • Mary Vanderplas July 24, 2015 at 5:45 am

    That Christians are dead to the law doesn’t mean that the law is dead. Haven’t you read Romans 7:12? Paul nowhere dismisses the value of the law or disparages his former way of life in Judaism.

    • Lanny A. Eichert July 24, 2015 at 10:21 am

      Mary, did I write the Law is dead or did I write the saint is dead? Read me correctly. The saint is dead (to the Law). I quite correctly thought you don’t know these things because you are not saved. The Law is to be used correctly to condemn all men and show them they need saving. The Law is the ministry of death, Second Death, hell and the Lake of Fire, where you’re going to be if you don’t embrace Fundamentalism.

      The beginning of Romans 7 demonstrates husband/wife are bound until death looses them. The wife, saint, died “in Christ” and is therefore loosed from the Law, her husband, in order to be married to Christ in NEW life. Conversion is witnessed by new righteous living and joy. You really don’t understand these things because you haven’t experienced being born again. There is not a saint of God who hasn’t been born again and knows the relief of sins. The power of sin is in the Law. That’s why death to the Law is so important for deliverance from sin. Wow, what you are missing !!!

  • Lanny A. Eichert July 24, 2015 at 2:51 pm

    The beginning of Romans 7 also demonstrates how horrible it is for a divorced person to remarry. God doesn’t consider divorce as the termination of a marriage, only physical death is able to terminate a marriage. Remarried persons with living previous spouses are adulterers or adulteresses and living in that sin as long as they are remarried. The pastoral epistles, 1 Timothy and Titus, prohibit any man who has been remarried from holding the office of elder/bishop/pastor in the church. They cannot be Biblically ordained to that ministry. Churches that do, violate God’s commandments. Divorce exists because of hardness of the hearts of those people, not the perfect will of God. God ordained marriage to last a life-time. It is extremely doubtful you will find youthful homosexuals married for a life-time. They’ll split before their partner’s death to go on to another relationship. That in its self proves the unnaturalness of homosexual unions and that it is prohibited by God as says both portions of the Holy Bible, Old and New. Even the Democratic Party cannot change anything by removing “husband” and “wife” from marriage applications, because their substitute, “spouse”, still means husband or wife in marriage relationship. Definitions make “gay” marriages totally without dictionary meaning. They don’t exist nor can they exist as long as words have their proper meaning. That’s why the LGBTQ community is a threat to society, because they seek to change the meaning of words to absolute foolishness. When words loose their meaning anarchy will prevail. That’s the destruction of a nation. It is the national interest to exterminate the entire LGBTQ community to save the Republic of the United States of America. The only good “gay” is a dead one. Convert them to Christianity, making them “straight” immediately and forever, or they need to physically die and burn in hell. Convert or die. Just like the Jews couldn’t put anybody to death, but had to wait on the Roman government, so today American Christians must wait upon upon their government to do it or something.

    • Mary Vanderplas July 28, 2015 at 5:49 am

      The fact is that marriages sometimes break, and many divorced people remarry and go on to live fulfilled and God-blessed lives. “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death.” (Romans 8:1-2)

      • Lanny A. Eichert July 28, 2015 at 4:59 pm

        Since, Mary, “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” is not the Mosaic Law, but “the law of sin and death” IS in Romans 8: 2. Verse 3 must have made that abundantly clear to you, you now mean remarried persons are free from the law, especially of Romans 7: 3??? They are free from the WHOLE law and the law is no longer the rule of life for them to live?

        What about Luke 16: 18 where Jesus said, Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

        You you now cherry pick what verses you wish to believe?

        • Lanny A. Eichert July 28, 2015 at 5:19 pm

          Mary, in Luke 16: 18 isn’t the remarried person committing adultery every moment they are married to another person’s divorced spouse? They are in a continuous relationship with a formerly married person, aren’t they? Isn’t that continuous non-stop sin. Where’s repentance and the forsaking of that sin? Will God forgive a sin that a person refuses to stop? Will God allow continuous sinning without consequences? Is that a God-blessed life?

        • Mary Vanderplas July 29, 2015 at 4:22 am

          Divorced persons are free from condemnation. They are free to live again in a committed relationship, striving to fulfill God’s intention for marriage – which is self-giving love and compassion for the partner, not simply legal faithfulness. Divorced persons are not bound by a legalistic interpretation of the law that says they may never love again in a committed relationship that reflects God’s intentions.

          • Lanny A. Eichert July 29, 2015 at 3:49 pm

            Mary, you deny and pervert due to your liberal human reasoning and bias instead of believing what Jesus actually said in Luke 16: 18. He said a divorced/remarried person is an adulterer or an adulteress. Can’t you read His words? “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” You make your own wiggle-room instead of taking Jesus at His words. Divorced people are not permitted by God to remary until their former spouse is physically dead. Love for their “ex” requires it be so. God knows what’s best and He said so in Luke 16: 18. You think otherwise and you make up your own rules. Who is right?

          • Lanny A. Eichert July 29, 2015 at 4:46 pm

            Mary, in Matthew 19: 7 – 10 Jesus clearly indicates “God’s intention for marriage” is NOT divorce and remarriage. Divorce was possible through MOSES, Jesus said, indicating God momentarily condescended to human wickedness. Jesus immediately commented, “but from the beginning it was not so” clearly explaining remarriage is NOT “God’s intention for marriage.” He goes on to immediated reaffirm remarriage makes people adulterers and adulteresses. LOOK at His disciples’ response. It amounts to: if you can’t get out of it, you are better off not getting into it. They got the message that marriage is for keeps or God will severely judge. And then Jesus moves the subject to celebacy confirming His disciples’ conclusion. God does NOT intend people to remarry, but to remain single after divorce. “Love again” is not from God. It is selfish from total depravity. It is wickedness. Just look at the typical track record: how many go on to their third and fourth marriages. They never solve their problems that cause their first divorce.

            • Mary Vanderplas July 30, 2015 at 5:07 am

              The ideal will of God for marriage is no divorce. But the presence of an exception clause in Matthew’s version indicates that the teaching of Jesus must be applied – that there are situations in which divorce is legitimate, that the prohibition of divorce shouldn’t be made into a rigid law. Moreover, the ideal will of God for marriage is also that both partners in the relationship flourish, that the relationship be characterized not just by legal fidelity (i.e., no adultery – or lust even, if Jesus’ definition of righteousness obtains) but by a genuine love and caring that is expressed in daily acts of self-giving and investment in the partner. Where this is lacking, where the marital relationship consists of one or both partners living only or chiefly for self or actively (or passively) hindering the flourishing of the partner, or where it is characterized by inequality, the relationship does not reflect God’s intentions. (Marriage as God intends is more than having the same last name and living under the same roof “till death do us part.”) When a marriage is broken or distorted by the failure of the partners, ending the relationship cannot be condemned. Neither can the decision of divorced persons to remarry, vowing to try again with God’s help to be the partner that God wills them to be in the new relationship. The “typical track record” you describe isn’t what I’ve experienced by observation. What I’ve observed mostly is divorced persons having wonderful experiences the second (or third) time around.

              You argue vehemently that there is no law for God’s saints and yet you turn the teaching of Jesus regarding marriage and divorce into a binding legalistic code, which you use to judge others. Incredible. Why, I think I’ll run right over to a fundamentalist church…..

              • Lanny A. Eichert July 30, 2015 at 6:30 am

                Mary, your inclusion in the last sentence of your first paragraph of (or third) destroys your whole argument. By it you don’t discredit a fourth or fifth time, etc.

                Jesus said it is adultery. Adultery is a violation of the Ten Commandments and you say it is intended by God as legitimate happiness. Jesus concluded the problem with celebacy rather than remarriage, dear Mary. Why will you not receive it as God’s proper will for divorced people? Because MOSES made an exception? Isn’t that significant that Jesus blamed Moses for the exception instead of His Father? Isn’t it significant that Jesus blamed the hardness of the human heart and His disciples shrinked back from marriage? You mean you cannot or will not discern the will of God in this? You really don’t have the desire to follow all the will of God, do you?

                • Mary Vanderplas July 31, 2015 at 5:20 am

                  Does it, really? Human beings are prone to failure. Of course, you wouldn’t know anything about this, since you’ve already attained perfection and think it your right and duty to judge everyone else…..

                  Jesus’ teaching concerning divorce is meant to be applied on a case-by-case basis, not turned into a legalistic code by which everyone who divorces and remarries is judged and condemned. And even those who violate the will of God are not to be condemned; there is forgiveness, freely given. Yes, commitment to marriage is a good thing generally, but getting out of a broken or distorted marriage and starting over with another person isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It may well even be the best thing – God’s will – leading to the flourishing of everyone involved. Pity the poor persons who have been brainwashed into thinking that they have to stay in a marriage that falls far short of God’s intentions or else risk incurring divine disapproval – or that they may never marry again after getting a divorce. It’s one thing if the Spirit convicts persons of the need to stay in a marriage and keep trying; it’s another thing altogether for other fallible human beings to decide, arrogantly and without knowledge of the particular situation, based on a legalistic reading of the scriptures, that persons must not end a marriage or remarry if they do.

                  • Lanny A. Eichert July 31, 2015 at 9:19 am

                    Mary, Jesus said it is adultery. Adultery is a violation of the Ten Commandments which you say is the Law standard to be lived. You violate your own code by allowing remarriage.

                    (Remember, Mary, there’s TWO laws in Romans 8: 2 and verse 3 makes “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” not the Ten Commandments.)

                    • Mary Vanderplas August 1, 2015 at 5:24 am

                      I didn’t say that the Ten Commandments, or the Mosaic law more broadly, are the Law standard to be lived. What I said is that the law is not abolished but fulfilled by Christ. This doesn’t always mean the continuation of the law given to Moses. It sometimes means transcendence of the original law. The ultimate standard is the revelation of God’s will in the life and teaching of Jesus – who lifted up love and mercy as being the essence of the will of God.

                      In the Matthew 19 text, Jesus’ response in context is not intended to outlaw for all time the ending of marriages that are not what God intends marriage to be. His response is intended to take away the power that men in that society had over women and over marriage: power to end a marriage by issuing a certificate of divorce. He is saying in essence that men have a responsibility to work at preserving the marriage. He is establishing equality in the relationship, and protecting women from being unfairly treated. To make Jesus’ words here into a general prohibition of divorce and remarriage is to violate the meaning of the text.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert August 1, 2015 at 2:10 pm

                      Mary, what you intend by at least one of your ideas of law is Christ’s clarification of the Mosaic Law which goes beyond the letter of the Law to the expounding of the spirit of the Law. {BTW, Jesus’ law is still the Mosaic Law.} The Pharisees were under attack by Jesus for technically defining the letter of the Mosaic Law regarding marriage/divorce/remarriage. Jesus gave the spirit of the Mosaic Law by saying it (divorce/remarriage) was not so from the beginning and He expounded the seriousness of the matter: adultery, no matter how you slice it, is the divine viewpoint. Your liberalism refuses the literalism of the very words of Jesus, Himself, in order to support your liberal traditions.

                      Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? {Matthew 15: 3 & 6} Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

                      Mary, your “ultimate standard” of your liberalism is the example of the life of Jesus. Your teaching is “following Jesus’ example” and that’s your law of “Christian” living. Yet you, and those who try it, haven’t thought through its total impossibility. Since it is impossible it is not a viable inspiration. It denies the Gospel which provides IMPUTED righteousness as the substitute. You don’t know this because the vail is still over your eyes, since you’re not born-again.

                      Mary, your “transcendent original original law” is the human conscious of Adam and Eve before they fell or it doesn’t exist because the only law formally given is the Mosaic Law. You sure do invent lots of laws and complicate matters just like the Pharisees.

                      Also, Mary, your feminism is showing. Men have power over women which you cannot deny, because it is God’s order you seek to overthrow.

                  • Lanny A. Eichert July 31, 2015 at 10:07 am

                    Mary, “the commandment holy, and just, and good” and you blame it as “dominated by sin and death” because you still are NOT placing the responsibility in the right place: YOU, your bent, twisted, and distorted mindset focused on a supposed right to happiness.

                    Exodus 20: 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. (“the commandment holy, and just, and good”)

                    You’re inconsistent with Romans 3: 31 and Matthew 5:17-19, which I told you I have addressed as Christ, the saint’s Substitute Righteousness. He fulfilled the Law perfectly that His perfect obedience might be imputed to His saints. That hasn’t “clicked” with you because you try to keep the Law and establish your own righteousness instead of submitting to the righteousness of Christ. I’m telling you, Mary, get rid of Law-keeping and trust the righteousness of God imputed. You’ve got to be saved and born-again or you’ll burn forever. Believe or burn. There’s no other way. Learn it at Fundamental Baptist, Alice’s dad’s sending church, now before it is too late for you, because once you physically die, there are no second chances to change your mind.

                    • Mary Vanderplas August 1, 2015 at 5:27 am

                      I’m not talking about a “right to happiness.” I’m talking about God’s design for marriage – which is the flourishing of both partners as equals in a relationship characterized by genuine love and caring for the other. Where self-gratification rather than self-giving love characterizes the marital relationship, God’s design is perverted. In typical fundamentalist fashion, you focus legalistically on no divorce or remarriage, ignoring the larger concern of what God intends marriage to be – as though it doesn’t matter that a marriage is broken or distorted as long as the partners remain “committed” until death – or if they do split up, refrain from remarrying. What garbage.

                      The law is to be obeyed – not as the means of works-righteousness, as I’ve stated several times in this discussion, but because it reveals the will of God. Both Matthew 5:17-19 and Romans 3:31 state or imply that the law is not rendered obsolete or nullified by Christ; rather, it is confirmed (though the ultimate standard is the life and teaching of Jesus). But we are not bound to a strict, legalistic following of the law. We fulfill the law by living by the rule of love.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert August 1, 2015 at 2:33 pm

                      Mary, “the law is not rendered obsolete or nullified by Christ; rather, it is confirmed” by Jesus’ words that remarried people are condemned as adulterers and adulteresses. We are bound to the strict sense which Jesus gave of it or we are not under it in any sense. Do you love each one of Jesus’ words? Where’s your “rule of love”? It is not for Jesus’ words, but rather for people like you?

  • Lanny A. Eichert August 2, 2015 at 9:20 pm

    Mary, using many of your (August 1, 2015 at 5:24 am) words, in the Matthew 19 text, Jesus’ response is intended to take away the power that men in that society had over women and over marriage: power to end a marriage by issuing a certificate of divorce. He is saying in essence that men have a responsibility to work at preserving the marriage AND NOT DIVORCE/REMARRIAGE. Since today women have just as much power to divorce as men, the prohibition is sexless. He is saying in essence that women have the same responsibility to work at preserving the marriage and not divorce/remarriage. Either way remarriage is prohibited by Jesus words identifying remarriage as adultery.

    As always, you presume to know Jesus’ intention without a shred of evidence to prove it. The addition of His adultery identification and His disciples’ response makes it evident remarriage is prohibited after a heartless divorce.

    • Mary Vanderplas August 3, 2015 at 5:23 am

      Jesus was talking about the power that men had to arbitrarily dump their wife; he wasn’t talking about the decision to end a fatally flawed marriage. Preserving the union entails working to fix a broken or flawed marriage; where the partners aren’t willing or able to do this, or where the relationship is so disfigured that it can’t be salvaged, ending the relationship can’t be condemned. And in any case, those on the outside aren’t in a position to judge.

      So, how do you feel about children born out of wedlock, couples who live together but aren’t married, women who have an abortion, dead-beat dads, people who have a chemical dependency, people who are addicted to pornography, people who engage in unconventional (read: kinky) forms of sex…..? Who else is on your list of people to judge and condemn? Your self-righteous, judgmental certainty about who is morally acceptable and who isn’t makes me sick. You claim to follow Jesus the Christ. Jesus was all about being compassionately, not judgmentally, present with people. To say that your actions betray your profession is a gross understatement.

      • Lanny A. Eichert August 3, 2015 at 6:41 am

        Mary, πᾶσαν αἰτίαν, every cause, means good as well as bad reasons; not limited to arbitrary. There you go off half cocked again just like a feminist, a pervert. The question is totally WITHOUT reference to cause and therefore limited totally just to the concept of divorce and remarriage. Jesus GERERALIZED the cause as hardness of heart, overal condemning the practice of divorce. Your arguments, plural, have no weight. Jesus said the practice results in adultery, which is punishable by physical death just like homosexuality. Just an only “good” gay is a dead one, so also an only “good” adulterer/adulteress is a dead one. They are far better off abstaining than being dead.

        • Mary Vanderplas August 6, 2015 at 5:29 am

          The question can be interpreted as “Is it okay for a man to divorce his wife at will, for any reason whatsoever?” or, alternatively, “Are there any grounds for a legitimate divorce?” Either interpretation is possible. Jesus’ words in verse 9 indicate that he aimed to protect women from the power of their husbands to divorce them at will, that he forbade easy divorce and remarriage on the part of men. In any case, an exception is made – meaning that the command is not to be read as a universal prohibition of divorce and remarriage but must be applied to particular situations.

          • Lanny A. Eichert August 6, 2015 at 12:23 pm

            Mary, reason and grounds are NOT in the discussion as I declared to you. Find for me in the text what reasons and grounds are considered. There are none. You’re making a “rabbit trail” which doesn’t exist. What does exist is the sin of adultery and that’s what remarriage is. Accept it as so, will you? No because you want it your way instead of Jesus’ way. So who do you believe: Mary or God? Are you a pagan? Have you deceived yourself into thinking you’re Christian?

            • Mary Vanderplas August 7, 2015 at 5:16 am

              Read the text in Matthew 19. The Pharisees asked Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” – a question that can be interpreted to mean either “Is it legal for a man to divorce his wife at will (or must he have a good reason for doing so)?” or, alternatively, “Are there grounds for a legitimate divorce?” Jesus’ words were a response to the question. He likely intended to say that easy divorce was not the will of God. Jesus was thereby protecting women from being arbitrarily dismissed by their husbands. He was not addressing here situations in which marriages were broken or dysfunctional. If his words are taken as answering the question of grounds for a legitimate divorce, then it is noteworthy that, while affirming ‘no divorce’ as God’s ideal, he included an exception – unchastity. This indicates that the command should not be applied strictly and generally, but on a case-by-case basis. Where persons are trapped in a dysfunctional marriage, ending the union and remarrying cannot be categorically condemned as an act of disobedience to the law of God as interpreted by Jesus.

              • Lanny A. Eichert August 7, 2015 at 6:58 am

                Mary, πορνεία porneia is not μοιχάω moichaō. WHEN does πορνεία porneia occur in that historical context of marriage?

              • Lanny A. Eichert August 7, 2015 at 7:30 am

                Fornication, Mary, is not an arbitrary reason for divorce. The lack of virginity is extremely serious. Jesus parents examplified that. Your logic fails. Adultery is still the result as Jesus said. Get it God’s way, not yours, or you’ll burn. Believe Jesus or burn forever.

              • Lanny A. Eichert August 7, 2015 at 1:04 pm

                Mary, do you realize that a person who looses his virginity before marriage is guilty of fornication and is forever ineligible for marriage? Sexual intercourse is what “consummates” a marriage, therefore a person should be morally bound in marriage to every sexual partner they’ve had. That’s why adultery is the result of remarriage. Do you see why unchastity is so heinous to God? Sexually active people are “married” people who have made a mockery of God’s institution of marriage and are justly condemned of adultery even though they don’t have marriage certificates. They don’t have the right to marriage for any reason for their entire lives. They’ve forfeited that happiness God designed for one man and one woman. Worse, much worse, should be said for “gay” unions.

                I’m so happy God kept me and my wife so that we married in our virginity.

      • Lanny A. Eichert August 3, 2015 at 12:01 pm

        Moral acceptability, Mary? Since when have you neglected your Presbyterian Reformed tradition of Total Depravity? See, this is what I mean by “you don’t understand Salvation”, because you haven’t been born-again. Get out of the liberal Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The OPC, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, is fundamental knowing “you must be born again” to see and enter the Kingdom of God. The only “morally acceptable” people to God are those who have received His grace to be saved. They’ve been washed clean of every sin and been counted, reckoned, imputed righteous by their faith in the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ for their sins. As a result, they have forsaken their past filthy lives and begun practicing holiness, just as Jesus said to those He healed and forgave, “Go and sin no more.” They’ve also gotten excited about the dramatic change Jesus made in their lives and perspectives and began preaching Jesus as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That’s the outworking of the two phases of the Romans 10: 9 & 10 conversion: confessing with the mouth and believing with the heart. Mary, your religion is all psycology and little of Jesus; all accepting people, but no salvation from sin. Dear Mary, Jesus was “a friend of sinners”, but He never condoned their sins nor joined in their sins. They knew in His presence they were rejected due to their sins and Jesus was there to get them out of their sins and give them righteousness in order that they be morally accepted by God. He was there for saving them, not just to be their friend. He is the Lamb of God Who takes away sin for those who will trust Him. Those who won’t, He cannot help. His salvation is a free gift that must be received in order to work for them. That gift, grace, is offered only in this mortal life. Physical death terminates the offer and Alice is wrong in preaching otherwise. She doesn’t know what “now” means.

        Regarding your list, Psalm 106: 15 And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul. They have no fulfillment in their lives who live contrary to the Law of God and morally unacceptable.

        • Mary Vanderplas August 6, 2015 at 5:31 am

          Jesus was a friend of sinners, not a “friend of sinners.” There is no qualification here. Yes, he judged sinful actions, but that he fully accepted the guilty persons is beyond question. In the story in John 8, Jesus gave the woman a new beginning of forgiveness; she went away released from guilt and shame to live a new life. He also challenged and put in their place the religious leaders who had brought her to him and who were eager to condemn her. Jesus, in contrast, was quick to forgive and accept the woman. Drop the stones, self-righteous boy, and follow the One who deals graciously with all of God’s broken, rebellious creatures.

          • Lanny A. Eichert August 6, 2015 at 12:09 pm

            Mary, Isaiah 59: 2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. I reminded you of Total Depravity and you have forsaken that doctrine. There is qualification with God. Full acceptance requires the removal of all sins and the imputation of perfect holiness. Amos 3: 3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed? Man has to be like God in order for the two to commune. Jesus did not accept the guilty person. You even stated He gave her forgiveness and new life and that’s what YOU need before you are qualified to be any kind of minister for God, dear girl. You are still in feminist bitterness and vulgarity, blinded to truth. It is rude to refer to the male gender by their body part (08/06 5:35 AM). Your bitterness also makes you incapable of wisdom concerning divorce and remarriage (08/06 5:29 AM).

            • Mary Vanderplas August 7, 2015 at 5:17 am

              Jesus welcomed and shared table fellowship with SINNERS – GUILTY persons. He didn’t say, “Clean up your act and then I’ll love you, then I’ll sit at table with you.” No. He loved them and welcomed them just as they were. You distort the gospel by insisting that God’s love is reserved for the righteous. Don’t you know that God demonstrated his love for humanity in that while we were still SINNERS, hostile toward God, Christ died for us? God didn’t wait until we decided to love him (an impossibility apart from his saving grace) before he reached out to us. Of course, God loves us too much to leave us as we are. His justifying and sanctifying grace enables us to forsake sin and live a new life by the power of the Spirit. But that his love for us and acceptance of us PRECEDES our changing and becoming new persons is the heart of the gospel. You claim to know and believe the fundamentals of the Christian faith. But your words about whom God loves and accepts testify otherwise.

              • Lanny A. Eichert August 7, 2015 at 7:00 am

                Thank you, Mary, for showing your contempt for Isaiah 59: 2, the doctrine of Total Depravity, and Amos 3: 3.

            • Mary Vanderplas August 7, 2015 at 5:20 am

              Bitter? No. Only enlightened, and unwilling to buy into fundamentalist crap concerning gender roles and relationships. The self-serving hierarchy that you perpetuate under the guise of its being God’s arrangement for the relationship between men and women is garbage. God’s purpose is full gender equality: women and men as equal partners in every area of life. Fundamentalist arrangements rob women of freedom and dignity, and rob the church of the fullness of gifts that the Spirit bestows upon women and men without discrimination. They also deprive both men and women of the deep communion that is possible only when both are allowed to flourish. The subjugation of women and the suppression of women’s gifts is just one of many reasons why fundamentalist Christianity is the last thing I would seek out. I don’t doubt that it’s one reason why so many thoughtful people, both women and men, who were raised in this belief system have left the church, never to return.

              • Lanny A. Eichert August 7, 2015 at 7:02 am

                Thank you for crying “victim” again, Mary.

      • Lanny A. Eichert August 3, 2015 at 1:03 pm

        Mary, the reason you are sickened by my certainty is because you lack the certainty of your sins forgiven, because they are NOT forgiven, because you fail to believe every spelt word of God’s perfect literal Holy Bible. You are under the Holy Spirit’s conviction of your sins and you will have no rest from God as long as you refuse to believe Him; that is, the right stuff. How many times do I need to tell you to get to a Fundamental Baptist church like John Dean’s sending church? That’s where you’ll get educated what to believe to be saved. Mary, you, too, can have this certainty if you’d only believe it and get saved. Repent and believe. For you that repentance means leaving your liberal beliefs and ideas, turning from them and embracing fundamentalism. If the Baptist faith is too seemingly “uneducated” for you, there is as I’ve indicated earlier the OPC, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, scholarship which might better suit your fancy and background. I have participated with them for several years in a church in the Salt Lake City area, namely Magna, Utah, where James White spoke during the week of July 4th. Google his name and you’ll be able to listen and see him online. Please, Mary, stop fighting against God.

        • Mary Vanderplas August 6, 2015 at 5:35 am

          I guess I haven’t made myself clear enough: I wouldn’t travel three centimeters to visit a church that shares your beliefs on most subjects. Don’t waste your time trying to persuade me. Besides, I don’t even own a veil, and it isn’t in my DNA to shut up and let people with penises do all the talking/teaching (while the women work to prop up the fragile egos of the in-charge ones)…..

          • Lanny A. Eichert August 6, 2015 at 1:01 pm

            Mary, you are incapable of making yourself clear because you’re blinded by your sins and need to be saved. That’s Basic Christianity, dear lady. You’re not going to get that in the liberal arena you’re in. You are “bugged” by your lack of certitude, but you hesitate to pursue finding some. That’s insanity. Why will you die {Second Death}? Mary, don’t you know you’re headed for hell? Lady, you’ve got to do something if you would avoid it. Jesus did it so you could escape hell. He substituted Himself as your penalty before God, your Judge. Are you going to let that go to waste? Is that how little you think of His love? Unless you make a deal with God, you’re lost. Don’t you get it? The deal is Jesus’ life for yours. The OPC ministers can tell you about it since you want to remain a Presbyterian. It is a life changing experience which will remove your bitterness and give you real joy that never will depart. Just like that woman in John 8 you mentioned (08/06 5:31 AM). Go for it, Mary. You won’t regret it if you do; but you will regret it if you don’t.

  • Lanny A. Eichert August 4, 2015 at 1:35 am

    And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. {1 John 5: 11 – 13}

    Mary, why did God, the Holy Spirit, inspire John to pen these words, “that ye may know that ye have”? It is not a “hope so” salvation or “maybe you won’t have it when you die” sort of a thing. “Have” is a present tense reality, being a Present Active Indicative verb. Do you see the order: the first is to know and the second is to continue believing every spelt word? It is the spelling that makes the verb Present Active Indicative. You and Alice should know that for as much as you dabble in the Greek. Spelling is important. That’s why you must believe every word as spelt is God’s word perfectly preserved in transmission from the original through the copies and translations to today. If you fail to believe, every word of the Bible will be evidence against you. God will require you to answer gender, number, case, tense, voice, mood and why you didn’t believe it unto salvation. Fundamentalists have the certainty you don’t. Why will you die (Second Death) when you could repent and believe NOW?

    • Lanny A. Eichert August 4, 2015 at 1:55 am

      Mary, the text also was written for saints to know who does NOT have eternal life. By that saints know who the wicked are. That way Saint Lanny A. Eichert knows who lacks the perfection he has and why. Get your perfection by learning and being saved at the Fundamental Baptist Church, then feel comfortable at an Orthodox Presbyterian Church of your choice. Don’t die and go to hell; you’re too close for that, if you’d only believe the right stuff.

  • Lanny A. Eichert August 5, 2015 at 2:10 am

    Alice wrote July 17th “Believers need to be aware of the lengths their leaders will go to in order to protect this doctrine” and she wishes you to think that is a bad thing for leaders to protect the church from going astray from cardinal doctrines. She has in her head this heretical hope that everybody sentenced to the Lake of Fire on Judgment Day after AGES of suffering in that Lake of Fire will be persuaded to believe the love of God in the Gospel and be saved from further torment. She totally misses the last verse in Luke 16 “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Jesus rose from the dead and still >90% of the earth’s humanity have not believed, and she thinks torment will persuade them? Which is of greater power and import: Moses, the Prophets, and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ or the torment of the Lake of Fire? She thinks the torment of the Lake of Fire. Poor, poor, Alice.

    If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

    • Lanny A. Eichert August 5, 2015 at 2:43 am

      Alice, when you tell them “god wins” do you describe how long they will be tormented in the Lake of Fire before they’re persuaded? You need to detail that “ages” is thousands upon thousands of years of intense suffering before “god wins” them. That’s the destiny your god chose for them instead of winning them in mortality and sparing them any of those “ages” of suffering. I doubt you tell it that way, do you?

  • Lanny A. Eichert August 6, 2015 at 1:39 am

    Alice, tolerance toward those who would have trouble sleeping at night because of a crisis of conscience over dissonance between their moral convictions and fulfilling their job requirements? Dissonance means the anti-gay clerk processed that gay license, so why should those gays show tolerance once they got what they wanted and exposed the clerk as a hypocritical fool. Are citizens supposed to be tolerant of criminals? The anti-gay clerk is a criminal in the making whose conscience might cause him/her to refuse to issue that license in the future. The anti-gay clerk is not a patriotic citizen zealous of Constitutional Law. The anti-gay clerk needs to be re-educated toward the pro-gay side and learn that anti-gay sentiment is a criminal tendancy and if he/she refuses he/she is to be locked up in prison for the rest of his/her life. IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT SODOM AND GOMORRAH.

    That’s Nazism. Alice, the Florida teaching Nazi, comes out of the closet, but calls herself the christian universalist.

    • Lanny A. Eichert August 6, 2015 at 2:06 am

      Perhaps it is unfair to label Alice a Nazi, but she’s so unthinking to not condemn and not delegitimize the LGBTQ community. If she fears her heterosexual marriage could possibly be delegitimized, she’s impossibly insane for using that as an excuse. There is NO dignity for the LGBTQ community, only shame. There is every dignity for heterosexual monogamous marriage. There’s no equality in the comparison.

      • Lanny A. Eichert August 6, 2015 at 2:16 am

        There is incomparable dignity in the heterosexual monogamous marriage that started in the virginity of both spouses and terminated more than fifty plus years later in one’s death. That’s a celebrated marriage !!!

  • Lanny A. Eichert August 7, 2015 at 3:17 am

    Well, here it comes when Alice writes this new blog. If she said she wasn’t intending to push her heretical Universal Reconciliation while volunteering at Life’s Choices, she surely will make it a biggy this time around dragging it into her experience under her intention “to admonish the conservative Christian community for hypocrisy.” What she means by that is to mercilessly push their faces through the mud she mixes with gravel to sting and cut them to shreds and mutilate them beyond recognition. She preaches love but has incredible malice for anybody who crosses her as did her church when they fired her. Don’t believe it is her “second” purpose. It is indeed her primary purpose. She’s as bitter as ever about her church experience and will not face the fact that she was wrong and wronged her church. She continues to justify herself by rebuking “the conservative Christian community” for, do you see what she calls it, “hypocrisy”. Oh, she’s not the hypocrite, they are. Her mirror she has smeared with face paint so she can’t see herself. Poor Life’s Choices will be dragged through it all as Alice’s Malice Machine, MM. Marcia beware, you’re about to be used.

    • Lanny A. Eichert August 9, 2015 at 9:58 pm

      Really, Alice, your new blog’s purpose is “to admonish the conservative Christian community for hypocrisy” while you devalue virginity calling it “an overemphasis on the hymen” and publish “control and subjugation of women” as your smoke screen? Don’t you ever look in the mirror?

      • Lanny A. Eichert August 9, 2015 at 10:02 pm

        CLEAN your mirror, Alice.

  • Lanny A. Eichert August 8, 2015 at 1:11 am

    Alice, in your counseling at Life’s Choices, did you ever confront any of these women about their sins viewed as the consummation of marriages which neither they nor their male partner intended on following through from the moment of copulation for the rest of their mortal lives? Have you asked them how many partners they’ve had and that God saw them spitting on the marriage He, Himself, personally ordained for their individual happiness? Have you made them feel the insults they done to God? Have you done any counseling that would result in abstinence from further promiscuity based on God’s Divine Absolutes? Or was your work solely based on human hardship disconnected from divine discipline? Did you fail to give them the WHOLE truth about their condition?

    fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: {Colossians 3: 5b & 6}
    no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. {Ephesians 5: 5 & 6}
    Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. {Galatians 6: 7}
    and be sure your sin will find you out. {Numbers 32:23b}

    These women are NOT all right. They don’t need just comforting. They are under the wrath of God for their sins and that’s the first order of business. They need to know you’re there to help them face God with repentance so that He may be able to forgive them. King David had to be faced with his sin before he could repent and be forgiven. That was your first priority. That was the purpose of that card to check off. Without securing their repentance you just have a repeater who will get pregnant again.

    • Alice Spicer August 9, 2015 at 7:32 pm

      Repentance is something God grants to a person, and rightly so, because only He knows one’s heart in relation to one’s circumstances.

      • Lanny A. Eichert August 10, 2015 at 2:14 am

        Alice repentance is a commandment from God.
        And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: {Acts 17: 30}
        Therefore since a grant is a gift, it is not a mere grant. See the word NOW that it refers to mortality, not the Lake of Fire.
        Learn from the spelt words of God’s perfect literal Holy Bible.

  • Lanny A. Eichert August 9, 2015 at 1:11 am

    Alice, you should also smarten up these poor pregnant girls to the fact that once a guy takes her virginity he rarely wants anything more from her than free sex and he doesn’t like her beyond that. She’s trash to him and that’s the way he’ll use her. She’s lost her esteem value and anybody who hears about it will consider her easy for sex and nothing more and that’s the way they’ll treat her. All because she believed he “loves” her: a great big fat lie. Any guy who really loves a girl will keep her virginity until after the ceremony, because that’s her esteem. It works both ways too: regarding the guy. He’s a big fat liar if he thinks he can have any girl any time, but then marry a virgin. Such a guy has no self-esteem, though he may be a proud idiot.

    • Alice Spicer August 9, 2015 at 7:24 pm

      All I see in this comment is the control and subjugation of women (and as you point out, sometimes men, as well) through an overemphasis on the hymen.

  • Lanny A. Eichert August 9, 2015 at 9:35 pm

    Look, Alice, do you want to fix a problem or don’t you. It is an age old problem that can only be fixed by educating young girls (and young boys) to the facts of life. Parents have failed their children and more and more today. That education has to come earlier than ten years of age. The church says don’t teach it in Sunday School, because parents want that authority, but too often they’re too late realizing their children have grown up. I lost my class in one church and often endanger myself on other churches. Back in the 1980’s in the East it was okay, but here in Utah in the 21st century it is taboo, but the problem has just worsened. So don’t give me “control and subjugation of women” and “overemphasis on the hymen” when virginity of BOTH genders is the only solution. That’s the ONLY way to prevent self-esteem problems. Virgins are always beautiful, sluts are always ugly. They themselves KNOW IT when it is too late. Prevent sluts by keeping virginity.

    Back in the sixties I read a pamplet written by the renown Bible-Belt preacher Oliver B. Greene noting the lack of suspicions between spouses who were virgins when they got married, whereas married non-virgins always held suspicions that their spouse might have an affair. You see, those those who kept their chastity were assumed above reproach for their value system, but those who were unchaste at marriage had already demonstrated their low moral values. What better proof do you want? Virginity is insurance against a failed marriage. The lack of virginity is glaring evidence of possible infidelity and definitely low esteem of self and everybody else.

    Alice, the woman’s hymen is a creation of God with a PURPOSE. When broken, it bled and the blood on the sheet was proof of the consummation of the marriage. In some cultures it is a flag to be proudly displayed. When people reduce themselves to animals, thanks to Darwin, nothing is sacred, but where God is Creator, virgins are sacred. Your comments have reduced you to the level of an human animal. You need to be converted to Christianity, because you sure aren’t one on display here and now.

  • […] first, here’s an update on the previous blog post. If you haven’t read it, please do so now. Otherwise you may be a little […]

  • […] is a question introduced in two previous blog posts, A Letter to Pro-Life Crisis Center Director and Good News at Life’s […]

  • The Pro-Life Catch-22 - September 13, 2015 at 1:34 am

    […] is a question introduced in three previous blog posts, A Letter to Pro-Life Crisis Center Director, Good News at Life’s Choices, and Original Sin, the Age of Accountability, and Pro-Life […]

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.