Voice of the People
Salvation is based on New Covenant
This is a reply to an article of Milt Hankins titled "What should we do with Old Testament Laws?"
With his three theological degrees, I'm not surprised of his understanding of the Biblical law. Laws are not the problem; it's the refusing to be obedient to the smallest commandment that gets people in trouble. Laws are good. Right? Old Testament laws were obedience and blessing, or disobedience and punishment. Plain and simple.
We do not live under Old Testament law for salvation, but God now commands all to repent and turn from sin (Acts 17:30,31). Our salvation is based on the New Covenant (Lk. 22: 20). The old has passed away (Heb. 8: 13). The new Covenant is not of law but the Spirit. (2nd. Cor. 3: 5, 6)
I have a question for you, sir. Do you just have a knowledge of God, or do you REALLY believe what HE says? God can either make you see clearly, or He can also let you confuse your own mind trying to justify your own reasoning. (2 Thes. 2: 11,12)
Don't ever think God was wrong with His Word. I suggest you read and study (2 Tim. 3: 16,17) to its fullest. I firmly believe your articles do more harm than good to the public with your understanding of scripture.
Constitution lets military share faith
Mark Caserta is to be commended for disclosing in his column, "Will soldiers' religious expressions be limited?" (Herald-Dispatch, May 9), that U.S. soldiers who openly share their Christian faith may be prosecuted for violation of military regulations prohibiting "religious proselytization" (persuading a person to convert from one religious belief to another).
One of the basic tenants of the Christian faith is that each believer in Christ has a duty to share his faith and seek to convert others. To refuse to do so is to deny one's faith. Contrary to the assertions of the anti-Christian "Military Religious Freedom Foundation," quoted in Mr. Caserta's column, Christians do not force their views on anyone.
The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution declares, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." (Emphasis supplied). Such provision applies to military regulations promulgated under authority of laws made by Congress. Forbidding a soldier to share his faith denies both his freedom to exercise his religion and his freedom of speech.
Although military discipline necessarily requires curtailing of some freedoms enjoyed by civilians, such curtailment must be reasonably related to maintaining military discipline. But, a person may not be compelled to shelve his faith upon entering the military service. Every military inductee and every officer appointed over him must subscribe to an oath that begins, "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;..." (emphasis supplied). It is an incongruity, bordering on the absurd, to require a soldier to support and defend the Constitution and yet demand obedience to regulations that contravene provisions of the Constitution.
Lawrence L. Pauley
The Herald-Dispatch welcomes your comments on this article, but please be civil. Avoid profanity, obscenity, personal attacks, accusations of criminal activity, name-calling or insults to the other posters. Herald-dispatch.com does not control or monitor comments as they are posted, but if you find a comment offensive or uncivil, hover your mouse over the comment and click the X that appears in the upper right of the comment. If you do not want your comment to post to your personal Facebook page, uncheck the box below the comment.