St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Does Not Believe the Bible (#2)

Having discussed a few false doctrines and the immoral positions that the Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church defends, we now focus on a direct statement of theirs—also held by other liberal churches. An analysis follows the quotation. The words cited below appear on the "church's" website in conjunction with the rainbow stole being draped over the cross.

We believe that every person is a unique creation and a child of God. We affirm the full participation of all ages, sex and gender identities, races, color, and ethnicities in all our endeavors. We…would be pleased to share our vision of God's love as you travel your path.

Yes, every person is a unique individual—made in the image of God. Zechariah 12:1 informs us that it is the Lord who "forms the spirit of man within him." God created us to be His children, but we chose to sin, which marred that relationship. Sin separates us from God (Isa. 59:1-2). That relationship can be restored through Jesus, Who died on the cross in order to make forgiveness of sins available to us.

When sins are washed away by the blood of Jesus (Rev. 1:5) in baptism (Acts 22:16), the love that God bestows on His children included them being called "the children of God" (1 John 3:1). This verse implies that one is either in the world or in Christ. Before people repent of their sins and are baptized, they are in the world. Upon obeying the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4), they become children of God.

The statement of St. Andrews (hereafter, SAPC) seems to say that all people are children of God before they display an acceptance of the truth or obedience to it. But the second sentence goes even further. They claim that all are invited to fully participate, but what does that mean? Does that include membership and leadership? Do they ever mention the concept of repentance? Well, we can't answer that, but their own teaching allows someone to live in sin and still be one of the leaders. How do we know that?

They have a section called "LGBTQ+ Inclusion and Eldership." The introduction states that SAPC "is committed to full inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals in all aspects of church life, including leadership roles." Really? So, women can be elders—even though Paul clearly wrote: "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence" (1 Tim. 2:11-12).

But, no, SAPC believes that women can be in charge as well as men can—or whatever other gender someone might claim to be. This is but one more reason why we make the claim that they do not believe the Bible. However, they become even more explicit in the Eldership Policy:

The church has stated that sexual orientation or gender identity will not prevent anyone from being called as a minister or ruling elder.

According to the Scriptures, an elder is also a pastor and an overseer. To call someone a ruling elder seems therefore redundant, but, then, SAPC is not big on abiding by what the Scriptures actually teach. These define homosexuality and sodomy as sin. Some of the Corinthians had practiced these sins, but they gave them up to become Christians. Paul wrote: "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified…" (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

In Corinth (a very immoral city), those becoming Christians gave up their sinful practices in order to become Christians—and eventually leaders. In Austin, Texas, you can continue in your sin and be both a member and a leader. Wow! Is Austin worse than Sodom? Perhaps the town is not, but some "churches" are.

What About Adultery?

Right next to the sin of homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is the sin of adultery. The question must be asked: "Can adulterers participate in the ministry or become a ruling elder?" If not, why not? Both sins are sexual; both ought to be repented of. On what basis would adulterers be denied a leadership role while homosexuals get a pass? Why is that not favoritism? Is it that adulterers don't have a national organization to belong to or a powerful lobby in Washington?

"But everyone knows adultery is wrong. Being a homosexual does not break up a home." First, everyone once knew that homosexuality was wrong also, but look where we are now—even churches are supporting the sin. Second, not everyone agrees that adultery is wrong; look at how many men and women engage in the practice. Third, homosexuality does break up homes. We have all heard of instances where a wife or husband left her/his home to run off with another woman/man. Apparently, it's all right to leave one's family for a same-gender person, but wrong if such an action occurs with a person of the opposite gender.

Now, what happens in special cases? What happens if a man says that he is a male trapped inside a lesbian body? Should that sin be allowed because in theory it's a homosexual relationship? What about people who are trying to transition from one gender to the other? If a man is working on such a transition, can he be a ruling elder if he then lives with a woman? And what happens if he is trying to become a woman but then lives with a male? There is a simple answer to all of this insanity. God created one female for one male. Anything else is covered by the word fornication. That includes any male-male, female-female, or male-female relationship when it involves a person who is not one's spouse.

Inclusion / Exclusion

Liberal groups love to parade their inclusiveness. Below are a few examples of this philosophy.

…true Christian values should promote love and acceptance rather than exclusion.

Many individual congregations…have stated their commitment to conducting same-sex ceremonies, reflecting a more liberal theology that emphasizes love and acceptance.

Like many other progressive mainline Protestant churches, St. Andrews Presbyterian Church's pluralistic motto is openness—"open minds, open hearts, open hands," as the church's slogan phrases it.

…the gospel is fundamentally about the proclamation of God's love to the marginalized….

These statements are comprised of nothing but rebellious attitudes against God with syrup poured all over them. What does the first of the four quotes from above mean? Shouldn't Christians promote love and acceptance rather than exclusion?

Yes—if we are talking about those to whom the gospel should be preached. In other words, the Jews had to be convinced that the gospel could be preached to Gentiles (Acts 10:28). No one should be excluded from hearing the truth of salvation. Love demands that the message be preached to all. And, in fact, as pointed out previously, the gospel in the first century was preached to adulterers, homosexuals, and others (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

But if we are talking about including those who continue in these sins and have not repented of them, the answer is, "No." God is exclusive. He was exclusive in Genesis 19 when He destroyed four cities who had adopted homosexuality as a way of life (cf. Deut. 29:23). He was exclusive toward those who practiced idolatry (Rom. 1:21-28).

Anything that is defined as a sin (and homosexuality is) must be given up. This was the message of John the Baptizer: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). When Jesus began preaching, He spoke the same message: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is hand" (Matt. 4:17). Furthermore, Jesus made it clear in Luke 13:3 and 5 that, "unless you repent you will all likewise perish." So, what's the point?

Jesus, while making the gospel available to all (in other words, all are included in the invitation to come to Jesus [Matt. 11:28-30]), practices exclusivity in connection with the kingdom of heaven, which is the church. Unless a person repents of his sins, he does not get into the kingdom. Sins are washed away in baptism (Acts 22:16); the new Christian, therefore, cannot continue to practice sins that were just washed away. That would not be repentance.

The exclusivity of the church is further seen in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Consider the words recorded in 5:11: "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person." How's that for refusing to be inclusive?

Consider the second quote listed above. SAPC and others like them think they are showing love by accepting homosexuals as part of their church. They do not require them to repent; they even conduct marriage ceremonies for them. Are they as open-minded toward adulterers, drunkards, or child molesters? Let them answer these questions so that we can know just how much love and inclusiveness they actually possess.

What about the motto, "open minds, open hearts, open hands"? It's catchy, and it sounds good, but what does it mean? Are their minds really open? They are concerning LGBTQ+ and the things that are important to them, but are their minds open to the Word of God? The answer is NO. They refuse to acknowledge the example of Sodom (Gen. 19; Jude 7) or Paul's condemnation of the sin in Romans 1:21-28. How open-minded is that?

As Paul once said, "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor. 14:37). Paul also wrote: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…" (2 Tim. 3:16). SAPC is not open to these Scriptures. They deny Scriptures when it suits their purpose; they do not believe the Bible. Neither their minds nor their hearts are open to the truth (Pr. 23:23).

The fourth previous quote claimed that the gospel is "about the proclamation of God's love to the marginalized." Jesus did offer salvation to the marginalized—even on one occasion to a woman caught in the very act of adultery (John 8:2-11). But He did not indicate that she could continue to be an adulteress. He told her to "go and sin no more." There's that pesky repentance surfacing again.

Jesus even invited the very worst of human beings—tax collectors. Jesus pronounced that salvation had come to the house of Zacchaeus—based upon the man's declaration of repentance (Luke 19:8-9). Yes, Jesus offered love toward all—even the unlovable, but the gospel involves more than that. This wonderful love is not designed just to make people feel "included"; it's purpose is to communicate to them that God's love has resulted in Jesus being sent to die for our sins.

Jesus' death on the cross made salvation available to all. The blood that was shed (John 19:34) enables us to be washed from our sins (Rev. 1:5). But to receive this cleansing we must give up the sins we have committed in the past. As Paul wrote, God now "commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). Acting as if one can be saved while continuing in sin, such as is the case of the LGBTQ+ folks, does them no favor. Teaching them the truth may cause them to repent and truly be included.