The homosexual anti-discrimination employment bill known as “ENDA†has now been passed. If a homosexual wants to work in your church or Christian organization, you would be prohibited by law from saying “no†on the basis of his engagement in the sodomite lifestyle. Run a Christian bookstore? The same would be true. A Christian school? Don’t even think of making homosexuality an issue in employment. Your sincerely held religious beliefs will no longer matter.
Now the tax collectors and “sinners” were all gathering around to hear him. 2But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”
Luke 15.1-2
This entry was posted
on Thursday, November 8th, 2007 at 3:37 pm and is filed under Ingrid, ODM Writers.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
93 Comments(+Add)
Jesus spent time with sinners. He forgave their sins and told them to “repent, and sin no more.” He did not put homosexuals livingin sin in leadership positions in churches. I think that’s what this article is saying. Why would a church hire a homosexual youth pastor who they know is going against a clear command in the Bible? Why would you want a homosexual teacher in a Christian school teaching children the Bible? But now a bill has been passed saying employers must look past this, and possibly hire them anyway. This doesn’t sound like a big deal, but it is for Christian organizations. Yes, we must love homosexuals. The article doesn’t say we shouldn’t. But we can’t let them be pastors/bible teachers/christian leaders until they have repented of their sin.
Merry,
What does that passage describe?
Why in the world would a homosexual ever want to work in such an environment, anyway?
Granted, the Libertarian side of me doesn’t like the government meddling in hiring practices of companies, but I just have a hard time thinking that homosexuals are going to be knocking down the door to work at the church down the street. It’s kind of like the same demand that there is for PETA members signing up to work at a slaughterhouse.
I agree with Phil, this probably won’t be but a onsie twosie issue here and there every once and a while. What homosexual wants to put himself in to THAT hornets nest (a Christian church) anyways?
However, Merry was correct in stating that Jesus “did not put homosexuals livingin (sic) sin in leadership positions in churches”. While I don’t think we came across any homosexuals persay in the Gospels, we did come across people in sexual sin, like prostitutes. Jesus didn’t turn them away, but taught and ministered to them as well, and commanded them to sin no more. To the humble He gave His grace, and to the proud and self righteous, He resisted them and turned them back. But even nasty prostitues and sinners like us can be very proud and be turned away by our own hard hearts. We’d do well to remember that.
I don’t think this is a big deal, but if say a gay person did apply to be in a church position, what should we do? Turn them away? Use it as a chance to minister to them and reprove them of their sin? Not that we don’t have our own problems…heh. Or, just let them stay in their sin and teach their sins to others in the church?
What’s the best and Scriptural course of action? At the very least, we cannot affirm their lifestyle anymore than I could affirm a pathalogical liars lifestyle, or a klepto’s, or a murderer’s.
Another thing to think about, what’s all this focus on the “Gay sin”? There ARE other sins as well, and MANY of them are prevelant in our churches and fellowships. Even other sexual sins are more prevelant than homosexuality. I see article as an article that is pigeon-holing one specific sin and harping on it to death. When we do that, people see us as hypocrites, and think that Christians are gay hating mongers. They forget that we are SUPPOSED to hate ALL sin, just like God does. What about rapists, muderers, coveters, prostitutes, and liars? Should they be allowed in church? Certainly we cannot affirm such behavior, but can those people not hold jobs in church? A good question indeed.
What did Jesus do?
What do you think?
Joe
I just wonder how many churches vet their secrataries, janitors, and other support staff for sin.
Tim,
As far as I can tell, the article seems to be describing an anti-discrimination bill for homosexuals and the consequences of that bill for Christians. It describes how Christian teaching against homosexuality may be thought of as “hate speech.” The article does not offer much in the way of solution, (as there may not be much of a solution) but it does offer information that people do need to know about. I have heard many people talking about this bill. Many Christians warning about the possible consequences.
While I was practicing witchcraft, I wanted to infiltrate churches to subvert them with songs that had bad theology. How much more can a homosexual, advertantly or inadvertantly do the same if he has to be hired as a staff member? This issues isn’t so much about certain sins, as much as forcing churches to not discriminate against religion.
Here in Australia we NEARLY had a similar issue with R.E. The local government was going to make changes to the law so that non-Christians could teach it. There was a big enough stink kicked up that it was stopped. I’m not going to be silly enough to think that “no-one in their right mind would teach another religion” but look at my example when I was doing witchcraft…and anyone else who is simply communuty oriented may be willing to do it also (innocently or otherwise).
On a personal level, I think the issue is revealing the serious error of registering a church with the government.
As for the Biblical passage posted (Luke 15 1-2), it is describing Jesus getting to the the sinners and tax collectors, the “icky” people if you will. These are people the uppity religious people would never be seen with. Yet here is Jesus, the son of God, making friends with them. Eating meals with them. Because he loves all people. And the Pharisees are muttering under their breath, wondering what Jesus is doing with all the icky people. Jesus treated all people equal, because no one is without sin. The difference between Christians and non-christians is that Christians have repented of their sin, turned away from living in sin. That can happen for homosexuals. There are some wonderful ministries for homosexuals, and Christians do need to make more of an effort to reach out to them.
do they ever?
Sorry bout the double post..
Do they ever? I mean other than “become like us and then we will agree”.
And how would that be any different from hiring a homosexual to work in a school, church or other institution?
Tim,
I do see quite a bit of difference. If you had, say, a homosexual who is living in sin (and may not understand that) come to a church and apply for a position as a youth pastor or other area of leadership, I wouldn’t hire him because he may teach ideas that do not agree with scripture. If he was leading a youth group of teens, I wouldn’t want him telling them that it’s all right to be gay/lesbian, because scripture makes it so clear that homosexuality is wrong. It’s kind of like hiring a murderer to be a pastor and have him telling everyone it’s all right to murder people, you know? Having a homosexual in a Christian leadership position just wouldn’t be honoring to God.
However, if a homosexual came to apply for a leadership position in a church I wouldn’t give him the job, but I WOULD get to know him, be friends with him, share the gospel if he doesn’t know it, pray for him, in hopes of eventually leading him in God’s direction. Bridge the gap between our different worldviews and help him understand that homosexuality is against God’s commands. Because I’d love him, and I don’t want to see him sinning anymore.
If he did eventually repent of his sinful lifestyle and became a mature Christian, there may be a possibility of him becoming a leader in the church. But not while he is still sinning.
Do you see the difference? Making friends with sinners is different than giving them jobs as Christian leaders/teachers.
Tim,
Personally, I think you’re missing the point on two fronts here. A private organization should be allowed to hire any way they want, and yes, I believe if they don’t want to hire me b/c I am a short fat Italian guy that is there constitutional right. Secondly, Would this homosexual teacher be willing to teach that his or her lifestyle is called sin in the Bible? If not, what would you recommend the school do? Bring in another teacher for that section? The GLBT community has no more of a right to force me to teach my children that homosexuality is right than I do to force them to teach teach their children that their lifestyle is sin.
Oh– and I should add that giving a homosexual a job as a Christian leader could be quite a bit different than hiring him as, say, a janitor or a cashier. That’s where I do not agree with the article written. I see those jobs as normal jobs that have nothing to do with leadership. If a homosexual was in desperate need for a job, I could hire him as a janitor while getting to know him and sharing the gospel. That would show Christian love, but is still quite a bit different than hiring him to teach other Christians.
Ahhhhh… now this is the difference between a truly discerning ministry and one that just complains… Prophets of old always gave a solution to the warnings… here we have the prophets of the ODM just giving out condemnation and death instead of offering reconciliation.
And yes I will harp on this for a while…. LOL!
Blessings,
iggy
Ok, a little bit of research on my part revealed that Ingrid is guilty of bad research. The bill only applies to non-religious organizations. Essentially, Christian bookstores would be the only things affected. Schools and churches are both exempt as is the military.
Joe….
Has this ever stopped her before? LOL!
ig
What homosexual wants to put himself in to THAT hornets nest (a Christian church) anyways?
Well… believe it or not, but there are people who are both gay and Christian.
That’s sad she has an agenda obviously to just complain, it appears.
“Well… believe it or not, but there are people who are both gay and Christian. ”
That is true, but there are none who are truly redeemed and gay. Christianity is just another religion.
Someone who is on staff at a church and falls into sin, is not the same as a professing homosexual applying for a job.
Jesus Christ ate, and walked with sinners, thereby redeeming them. However He never encouraged or accepted their sin, and never told them not to worry about it.
How many of your obviously superior churches and/or pastors have knowingly hired practicing gays. pedophiles, or …..?
As for iggy,….ignorance knows no bounds.
I’ve never mentioned anything about teaching or leadership positions.
Oh? I don’t see anything in scripture about everyone Jesus ate being redeemed.
Interesting question coming from someone who has never called to repentance his own fellow writers on issues of lying and slander. I suppose when it comes to watchdoggies its all about the type of sin.
Vrooooom!
ChrisP!
Vrooooooooom!
ChrisP,
Has your superior church repented of its Purpose Driven madness and open door to compromise?
Chris P’s church…exists to win people to Jesus Christ and bring them to his eternal family through membership, to see them grow to Christ-like maturity, and equip them to effectively fulfill the mission of evengelizing (sic) the world and ministry to the Church to use whatever means necessary to fulfill his mandate for us in order to magnify his name.
exists to win people to Jesus Christ=evangelism
bring them to…membership=fellowship
to see them grow to Christ-like maturity=discipleship
and equip them to effectively fulfill the mission=ministry
in order to magnify his name=worship
Why can’t you just admit that sin is sin and certain people’s obsession with one particular sin really says more about their own sin than anything else?
What happened to the “whole counsel of God”?
RE: Jesus not putting sinners in church leadership positions.
Ummmm….there weren’t any churches to lead at that point.
And I think the disciples were pretty broken…
nc,
Very true, very true.
)
Tim,
I know you didn’t say anything about leadership/teaching positions specifically. You mentioned churches and Christian schools, and most paid positions in those places are leadership and teaching positions. Sorry I didn’t make that clear. See my last comment about other jobs.
Chris P,
Now, this seems to indicate you beleive that when one becomes a Christian they no longer sin… so you must be perfect as Jesus…
Jesus ate with Judas who was also a sinner… and you miss the point completely… all men have sinned and the ones condemning Jesus were also sinners… ahem… like you! So, even though Jesus ate with Judas, Judas died unredeemed… at the same time Jesus ate with the sinners there were often Pharisees present… which many of those were no redeemed… so eating with Jesus did not save people… but the Cross and the Resurrection did and still does… so again you are wrong.
Now Chris, this does happen too often… but it also happens in YOUR type of church also.
Interestingly I was quoting someone who checked the facts and found Ingrid to be wrong… and then I acknowledged that it seems that happens a lot with her… so how am I wrong by stating that once again she is wrong? Did I miss how you showed me and all how she was right?
Now all of that was a waste of time as Chris P is really to much of a wimp these days to actually speak to us… it is as usual the drive by who cares little for facts and speaks a ton of bad theology then disappears!
So to all that are here… be blessed,
To Chris, I am praying for you.
iggy
hmmm I noticed a few of my comments from last night and today are in the hopper still… oh well… we still have Chris P and his whiz bang, “eat with Jesus and get saved” new creative theology.. someone please tell Judas and a a few Pharisees that… they will be surprised! LOL!
Blessings,
iggy
Hello all,
I side with merry, Joe C et al. What i see from tim’s post is he is whacking Ingrid for the sake of whacking Ingrid.
Ingrid is dead on in this topic IF indeed the bill covers employment for homosexuals in the church.
A church cannot be recruiting people who declare/announce themselves in blantant, unrepentant sin – otherwise the church will be condoning the sin and telling people that the sin is not sin at all. The church foremost is a gathering of remdemmed people who want to worship God – thats the purpose. So therefore a church should be staffed with people who at least profess obedience at the outer level.
We cannot check for interior sin and hence, church leadership should accept people into the church as workers after finding no blantant sin and giving them the benefit of the doubt.Only after some time, when the church uncovers the internal sins, do they review their decision.
These homosexuals are blantantly proclaiming that there is nothing wrong with their acts when they try to be recruited into the church as workers.
Alternatively, lets say [a hypothesis] one day Mr X becomes a prominent false prophet and he indulges in all kinds of sin (mass murder, rape etc etc etc) . He declare those activities as just ‘fun’ and there is nothing wrong with it.
Then he goes over to tim’s church and says. ‘I would then want to replace the leadership there and teach them what i believe’. He thinks he had done nothing wrong. He will teach the memebers how to rape and mass murder ‘for the sake of god’.
Will you accept the man?
I know i won’t. I’ll kick him out of the church saying
Luke 3
, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance!!’
If you allow these men in, you discriminate against God’s law. It would be a clear disregard for God so that we can accept man’s behaviour. Unacceptable.
How many of your obviously superior churches and/or pastors have knowingly hired practicing gays. pedophiles, or …..?
What do gays and pedophiles have to do with each other?
Oh … by the way… Ingrid’s superior research…
ENDA has not passed. It only passed the House, not the Senate.
Glad she is worried about getting her facts right…
That is true, but there are none who are truly redeemed and gay.
Hehe… when did someone deem you the judge?
I have a feeling you may be very surprised at who you see in heaven….
I was really perplexed… if that Ingrid wrote was true, that was undoing about 40 years of legislation…
Chris P.,
Were evangelical slave-owners during the 19th century saved?
What about rabid anti-semites, are they saved? Racists? Bigots? Cowards?
Don’t we all have blindspots? In all humility, I’m pretty sure future generations will look at much of what we’re doing and condemn us… I’m just hoping that doesn’t mean I’m not saved.
Let God do the judging. He’s much better at it.
Hello, i’ve submitted a comment. Was it moderated? Just checking.
Hello ‘anti-chris p.’ people et al,
Do christians deliberately disobey God’s Word? It was written not to committ idolatry. If a gay can be christian, then why can’t a christian be a buddhist and a muslim at the same time?
Anyway, Ingrid is spot on in her point that declaring gays cannot be church workers, if the church professes to practice true faith.
By accepting the open declared gay, they condone his sin. They should wait until the gay repents before letting him in.
M.G,
Agreed that God does the judging.
However this does not mean we disobey scripture and allow openly unrepentent people into a position of the church. in fact, they ought to be excluded from assembly until they repent.
It does not square with the books in timothy (although this is more for leaders) and jude, 1,2,3 john.
While we are not really allowed to make an ultimate judgement onto people i.e. ‘he will be unsaved full stop’, we can say :”he will be unsaved IF he persists in his sin til death”.
So for the sake of lovng the gay person, we forbid his/her participation in church activities/work until the person brings fruits in keeping with repentance (luke 3).
Same for other sins as well. This is consistent with Leviticus when a person sins/ rendered unclean, the person cannot participate in assembly or ios stoned.
I hate to do this guys, but I agree with Chris P…
(1Co 6:9) Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals, (10) nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Lance if you go back and bother reading what other people have written on the comments you’ll see no one is suggesting this applies to church leadership positions.
This is consistent with Leviticus when a person sins/ rendered unclean, the person cannot participate in assembly or ios stoned.
Oh… so you refuse to touch anything that a woman touches during her period then?
Or you refuse to wear clothes made of two different materials?
Do you think that adulterers should be stoned? Shoot… do you think that homosexuals should be stoned?
Lance,
Yeah, you don’t see anyone defending allowing gays into leadership positions or paid positions around here… because that’s a lie propagated by fear mongers. There’s a blanket exception just like every Civil Rights legislation passed since the early 1960s. The truth, honestly, can be a bit inconvenient to Ingrid, with all due respect.
You also write:
“If a gay can be christian, then why can’t a christian be a buddhist and a muslim at the same time?”
That’s because I believe salvation is by grace through faith.
If you honestly blur issues of faith and issues of works so seamlessly, that’s a bit worrisome. (Which isn’t to say that idolatry is not a huge issue in the church…today’s Asherah pole is a flickering little box in everyone’s home.)
Lance, can you answer my questions to Chris, P.? Were slave-owners Christians? Racists? Persons given over to extreme gluttony? (”Sure Pastor Smith, you can have another piece of fried chicken.”) What about greedy persons? What percentage of American Christians give their money away?
For ME: the POINT is NOT that it is ok to let homosexuals be on church staffs…
the POINT is the obsession with homosexuality as this huuuuuge deal breaker, but–and speaking from experience here–churches are in massive amounts of turmoil because of the rampant non-sexual sin of their “godly” members.
The fascination with gays really is a foil to distract from deep seated problems in the ways our churches do not function-I’m really not interested in Christian opinion about gays when they divorce in droves and are massive secret supporters of the porn industry.
Christianity isn’t offering a healthy heterosexuality…why should people listen to us.
Do you see how that makes us look like crazy people?
THAT’s the point…to me at least…
And…you can’t trot out Leviticus.
the “popular” understanding of the word “clean” (tahor) has been laden with meanings that were foreign to the cosmology of the priests.
By your own standards the word “clean” has to carry the same weight. So if certain things were “unclean” (i.e. morally dirty, sinful) then a lobster is dirty and sinful?
You have to understand that cosmology to understand the intent behind the rules and their understanding of the nature of the universe.
In light of those things…then the degree of punishment makes sense along with the other things like 2 threads, no pork, etc. etc….
And nobody on this thread better trot out the fake “ritual, moral, civic” distinctions in Leviticus.
There is no basis in Leviticus for reading them that way.
I know I just opened a can of worms (for anyone who cares)…
so if you want to debate leviticus you can email me.
Also
RE: being a christian and a buddhist, etc.
apples and oranges.
You can’t compare it to moral issues.
That’s a discussion about the basic content of belief about God, Jesus, the Trinity, etc.
A completely different discussion…
There’s no statement on gays in the Creeds AND proportionately there isn’t much statements about gays in the Bible.
You could even argue there isn’t any statements about an “orientation” so much as there are statements about certain “acts”.
We’re back to my complaint about proportion and hypocrisy.
nc,
You have the voice of reason… and I agree!
there are issues and this is what people like Brian McLaren are trying to say… why harp on “a” sin, when we have sin rampant.
Someone like Ingrid should realize that her divorce makes her an adulterous woman if she remarried… and she is as bad worse than someone “struggling” with homosexual tendencies as a Christian. Yet, she feels she can trot out the very things you stated… The difference only being that Moses allowed it becasue of the hardness of men’s hearts…
Now, we have grace and live by forgiveness… and the woman who is divorced is also forgiven…
God hates divorce and he hates abusive people (Malachi 2:16) Yes, I said he hates “people”… but again this is the OT standard… In the NT God does not hate the person… but he hates the identity that one bears… the adulterer, the homosexual, the coward and so on… there is a subtle shift from the person to the sin… for God judged the sin and forgave the person and now seeks them for reconciliation. To use the Law improperly is abusive and is wrong. TO judge the homosexual, when one is divorced… is wrong. TO judge a church or person who life you think is not in accordance to YOUR own standard and you have to kick your own child out of your house, means that you need to take care of your own house before you attack someone else’s house.
Can of worms? We think we are righteous by our own means then judge others… that open a can of worms one may have to deal with when they stand before God… and try to explain why they did not deal with the plank and were so consumed by someone else’s splinter.
Be blessed,
iggy
Sigh.
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/11/fruits-of-repentance.html
A gay who remains gay has no displayed the fruit of repentance. So whats the point of joining an assembly of people who do show fruits worthy in keeping of repentance.
Dave,
Your comments have a poor tone. You should stay in the boundaries of civility.
The point i am driving is simply that the idea of separation here is part of what the bible says. You cannot deny that it did occur and was in fact instiuited by God WHO DOES NOT CHANGE.
Nc:
[There’s no statement on gays in the Creeds AND proportionately there isn’t much statements about gays in the Bible.]
There is in the bible. Check leviticus. Just because theres a new term does not mean the idea is new. ‘Lie with another man’ = gay. Obviously.
[Were slave-owners Christians? Racists? Persons given over to extreme gluttony? (â€Sure Pastor Smith, you can have another piece of fried chicken.â€) What about greedy persons? What percentage of American Christians give their money away]
At the time of their sin and b4, they are NOT christians. They must repent. Saul (Paul) was a Jew before conversion and he was not YET christian. Only AFTER repentance via road to darmascus did saul repent and become the a great man of faith.
If they persist in their sins and do not show fruits [luke 3] in keeping with repentance, they will never be. Until they repent, they will never be.
Unfortunately, being able to repent from sin is a gift from God itself, which i know you all scoff at and say that Man has free will to do it. Yet it is written, what is impossible with man is possible with God – so god regenerates degenerate man
[By your own standards the word “clean†has to carry the same weight. So if certain things were “unclean†(i.e. morally dirty, sinful) then a lobster is dirty and sinful?
You have to understand that cosmology to understand the intent behind the rules and their understanding of the nature of the universe.
In light of those things…then the degree of punishment makes sense along with the other things like 2 threads, no pork, etc. etc….]
If you are talking about food, the cornelius example in the Bibler (Acts). is clear to tell us that the food laws were from then on abolished.
[the POINT is the obsession with homosexuality as this huuuuuge deal breaker, but–and speaking from experience here–churches are in massive amounts of turmoil because of the rampant non-sexual sin of their “godly†members.
The fascination with gays really is a foil to distract from deep seated problems in the ways our churches do not function-I’m really not interested in Christian opinion about gays when they divorce in droves and are massive secret supporters of the porn industry. ]
Agree. Nonhomosexual sexual sins and homosexual sins are all the same degree of sin – they sin against the body, which is the temple of God, as written.
[If you honestly blur issues of faith and issues of works so seamlessly, that’s a bit worrisome. (Which isn’t to say that idolatry is not a huge issue in the church…today’s Asherah pole is a flickering little box in everyone’s home.) ]
If you worship the box, yes it becomes the new asherah pole. If you put faith in that item rather than God, yes it is an idol.
lance,
Actually the food laws represented that Cornelius, a gentile not of the chosen people the Jews, considered unclean as a person and not allowed into the temple to worship… was now clean.
It has to do with the sin died with Jesus on the Cross. Since sin died on the Cross, man is clean and can be reconciled to God through Jesus. To deny Jesus is to be denied… it does not have to do with sinning and not sinning.
To focus on sin means we miss the point that we are no longer in bondage to it. Since the Holy Spirit was poured out on all flesh, it has cleansed all flesh… we deal with the desires of this flesh, but our sins have already been dealt with.
It is now the ministry of reconciliation when it was once the ministry of death and condemnation… that is why when one is in Christ there is no longer any condemnation… those not yet reconciled, or rather have yet to receive the reconciliation though forgiven and not condemned by God or Jesus, nor judged by them will be judged by their own words and deeds if they deny Jesus… this is their own condemnation on themselves.
Jesus speaks of this clearly in John 5.
Be blessed,
iggy
[Do you think that adulterers should be stoned? Shoot… do you think that homosexuals should be stoned?]
The stoning law was given to demonstrate that such degrees of sinning leads to death. As shown in leviticus, there are differing degrees of sin, which correspond to differing degrees of punishment.
Since God instituted those laws, and since God does not change, those acts are worthy of death, but it is not the people who stone, but God who will kill the body and soul [i.e. eternal damnation]. Fear him who can destroy both body and soul. Fear the Lord.
The book of leviticus today is relevant to tell us what degrees of sin are deadly to the soul and what are not. They give us an idea how severe our sins are and of course, how worthless/degenerate we can be. In addition, all the sacrificial laws point to Christ’s perfect sacrifice and act as the model which the Jews were meant to identify the Saviour.
I hope the comments i receive will be civil. I reply with explanation and as clearly as i can. So i do not except a ‘chris-p’ style treatment.
Good discussion everyone…
Tough issue to talk about but I really appreciate the dialogue on both sides.
I think the church leadership position is a good question. I’ve struggled deeply with my sins (past and current) in regards to my ability to effectively lead.
With full disclosure; prior to my position in the church I committed adultery (as a Christian). I’ve repented, My wife has forgiven me, our marriage has healed and God’s grace is simply unbelievable to me. During my time at the church a man (who was an elder) committed adultery. He was removed from his position, was unrepentent and was removed from our fellowship. Same sin..different outcome.
This next line will be taking harshly but I don’t know how else to say it. When you trot out verses against homosexuality and categorize it as the worst sin imaginable and elevate yourself into a position of moral supremacy, well, you’re obligated to use that same standard against yourself. To quote Paul “you’re obligated to keep the whole law”.
Lance,
I guess the question is what you mean by “remaining gay”. I think there is room to allow a difference between someone who is struggling with temptation in that area and someone who is sexually active.
There are some Christians who would call themselves gay but are celibate, and have resolved themselves to a life of celibacy. To me this seems like a very Biblical approach.
I know there are some Christians who claim complete deliverance from homosexuality as well. This seems legitamate in many cases to me also.
My point is that it seems that we need to differentiate between practicing, unrepentant homosexuals and people who struggle with homosexuality and still see as part of their identity in some way. It’s very easy for me as a heterosexual male to sit back and pronouce judgment on homosexuality, but it becomes a trickier issue when dealing with actual people who struggle with it.
btw, point of clarification here.
I do not condemn anyone for being divorced… my illustration is only that to hold up one sin as “the most vile and evil” and to ignore that other “sin” run rampant throughout the church is really missing the point that if we understand grace and forgiveness, “sin” seems to not be a huge issue… people tend love and hold up each other and edify each other. If sin is the focus, then people attack and chew and spit out each other in their attempt to show they are not a bad as sinner as the other person. This means that they do not understand Grace and mercy… and are depending on their own righteousness instead of the righteousness of Christ…
People like Ingrid and Ken miss the point that they are the semi pelagians as they are exchanging the righteousness of Christ with their own and then judging other by themselves as the standard… or worse they hold of the OT understanding of the Holy God and deny the NT revelation that no one is righteous and we all need Jesus… we are all in the same boat… iggy, Ingrid, Ken… and all need Jesus’ righteousness and to depend on His obedience as our own will not satisfy God… only Jesus does that.
I am not condemning those who are divorced. I condemn no one… if someone reads me as doing that… read more careful as it the person that condemns themselves… some live by forgiveness and grace… others justify themselves and condemn and judge others… we receive what we sow… the homosexual or divorced person… any sinner living by grace, will find God’s grace is sufficient for them.
Be blessed,
iggy
What’s so hard to understand guys? Sin is sin. If you persist in sin, you don’t know God. I’ll leave the judgment up to God though, and not focus on one particular sin while hardening my heart to the sin in MY life.
I think the difference is this: When God reveals through His Word, or by Word of mouth of another Christian that you are sinning, and you recognize this as the Spirit gives conviction and repent, you’re doing exactly what the Bible says a Christian will do. But if you harden your heart and persist in the sin because you justify it (I’m not talking about struggling, at least then you know it’s WRONG), then you prove (I think, and think Scripture thinks too) that you do not know God.
Look at that guys, really look at it, and someone tell me that a Christian can ‘keep on sinning’ and practice a life of sin, and in reality actually KNOW God. I think not.
And God is the Judge.
But no one here can honestly, biblically, deny that homosexuality is JUST as much of a sin as adultery, lying, murder, coveteousness, etc etc. And no one who is a Christian persists in sin, because Christ came to destroy that, and if Christ is in you, those sins will be put to death.
I can’t even believe this seems to be an argument??
This blows my mind, I’ve never seen this before (granted I grew up devoid of anything Christian, so I know basically nothing about how and what you guys and the Christian culture discuss and make issue of). Christians actually argue over this? That you can be Christian, but love and constantly practice something God calls sin? And still be shown as a Christian? Christians argue over whether homosexuality is a sin???
Do you guys argue about lying too and whether it’s a sin? lol, sorry I just see this discussion as getting very ridiculous since I first posted yesterday.
Let’s all just agree with the Bible on this one and be in unity. How about that, for once? Can we try? lol
Y’all rock,
Joe
I’ve been hearing lately in these comments that Ingrid was divorced. Is this true?
How can she serve in her church if this is the case? How can she call out homosexuality as a really naughty sin if this is the case?
Joe C,
I suspect the only reason you can write like that is because you’ve bought into the idea of sin as doing a particular act . By you definition virtually every single watchdoggie out there isn’t part of the kingdom of God because they persist in a active lifestyle of sin regarding their lack of love, slander, and pride. They are not struggling with it, or even acknowledging it. So, by your definition they go to hell.
I’m by no means claiming that its good for a Christian to sin, but I do acknowledge that the grace of God covers a lot of sin, even for Christians like the watchdoggies who persist in a lifestyle of sin.
Please note, this is completely separate from the topic of hiring into non-leadership positions.
Joe,
I don’t argue over your point that sin is sin. It just seems to me that homosexuality has something more to do with a person’s identity than other sins. Someone who lies is a liar, but it is unlikely they would identify themselves by that.
I don’t believe homosexuality is just a matter of choice. I’m sure the Holy Spirit can change people, but I’ve known of committed Christians for whom it was a constant temptation.
All I’m saying is that we need to be careful to not make homosexuality a “super-sin” that is so hated that it creates an environment where people who actually do struggle with it feel unsafe even admitting it.
Also, I agree with Iggy, Phil, and Chris. What you guys said was true.
Good talk
Joe
The issue isn’t sin and what constitutes it.
The issue is the “righteous” obsession with a particular activity disproportionately in the face of rampant sin in the church.
When I see “discerning” folks get as visceral about the effects of divisive gossip and control in church boards and communities–since that has destroyed more churches than we would like to admit–then I’ll be interested in their articulation of the “principled stand” against their favorite brand of immorality.
It’s a matter of credibility…not a matter of “the truth” or “what is sin”.
Phil, thats what I was saying, if you’ll see. Homosexuality is no more ’sin’ than lying or using God’s name in vain.
Tim, I see sin as both something you do and something that is a nature. And Tim, please you know better than to say, “by my definition”
I’m pretty sure I put the paragraph of 1 John 3 there for a reason. If you think anything is my opinion, and wrong, then don’t listen to me, it’s worthless, I agree. Just read the Scripture then. I have no qualms about my words being useless.
I agree, God’s grace covers ALL sin. But do those who persist in sin till the very end, loving it, and justifying it, prove they know God or not, by the whole of what Scripture says?
Let’s not be afraid to have convictions about what God plainly says fellas.
Love, Joe
[There are some Christians who would call themselves gay but are celibate, and have resolved themselves to a life of celibacy. To me this seems like a very Biblical approach.]
I would approve of their actions of celibacy in order to avoid sinning. In this case they have repented of being gay. Then they ain’t really gays aren’t they?
I refer to active sexual gays. Leviticus also refers to active ones. Yet Jesus uped the notch when he said that a man who looks lustfully at a woman commits adultery. So apparently consistent enteratainment of the thought without remorse is as good as sinning the act itself.
But since these guys took the vow of celibacy, then they probably don’t actively do it . So they have repented! Shouldn’t we celebrate?
Leviticus does not refer to “gays”. It refers to homoerotic “acts” between males.
Again… biblically you can mount this argument without bringing Leviticus to bear.
Even if you don’t understand/agree with the priestly cosmology argument, you’d still be guilty of cherry picking Leviticus.
Tim,
I don’t think Joe C ever meant a single act. He quoted scripture which said
“No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him”
The key phrase here is ‘keeps on sinning’. If the watchmen (please use the correct term – to use a term dog is an insult and if you stand by God’s law, you have no need of insults)
consistently demonstrate pride against God, then yes they will die eternally.
But you can be proud IN god as well. Then you are not sinning. Even paul boasted in the Lord. Even the apostles called out false teachers and yet were righteous. I hope you can get the idea.
Lance,
The watchdoggies are pursuing a path of sin. They lie, they are proud of themselves, and they slander. They don’t acknowledge the sin, they don’t turn from it.
Are they going to hell?
Something else to consider, what you are essentially saying is that in order for the gospel to be effective you have to successfully recognize all of your sin, and wrestle with it. That certainly sounds like adding works to the gospel.
Nc,
[Leviticus does not refer to “gaysâ€. It refers to homoerotic “acts†between males. ]
God defined only 2 races. male and female. He created male and female. When god cursed the human race, he cursed male and female , not gay or lesbian.
So are you demanding God to follow your/the gay’s definition of sexuality? I rather follow God’s definition. Since God defines 2, and condemns abeerations, it would be wise to work with 2 and call other aberrants sin.
The problem with most people today is that they choose their own defintions to fit the bible rather than use the bible to define for them the limits of their defintions.
I’ll be honest nc, you come across to me as playing with words here. Gay (biblically) = a person who commits homoerotic acts or consistently, without remorse, entertains positively the idea of commission of homoerotic acts, since Jesus said that looking at a woman lustfully commits adultery.
A person who has such ideas but combats them in faith and refuses to yield and repents is NOT GAY. Then they should be excluded from this discussion of gays. Any discussion here of gays ought to have a consistent definition.
reason: Sometimes men have all sorts of wicked thoughts because of our degenrate sin nature (but then again, most here deny that and believe in free will)… Even Jesus was tempted by satan but satan failed, obviously.
[Are they going to hell?]
I have explained myself. It depends where their direction of pride is. If in God, no. if away from God, yes. Note that this is not one-off and they must persist in the sin until they die.
[Something else to consider, what you are essentially saying is that in order for the gospel to be effective you have to successfully recognize all of your sin, and wrestle with it. That certainly sounds like adding works to the gospel. ]
You have to recognise all aspects of your sin and acknowledge you are WRONG and as written to ‘work out our salvation with fear and trembling’. This is not a works-based gospel. This is AFTER justification, i.e sanctification. Yet what is impossible with man is possible with God. Note although we are commanded to do so, our dengenerate nature makes sure that we would be totally unable to ‘work out our salvation with fear and trembling’ unless God enables it.
The gospel entails we sin, Jesus comes in, dies for his people, and ressurrects, goes to heaven physically, will come again. People who are saved are based on election and play no part in the choosing.
Thereafter those who are chosen by God will be changed in the heart as written in Ezekiel 36, and God will put his spirit in us so that we can obey his commands. So even obedience itself is completely a gift from God. Since God is the one who makes the work possible, how is it then a works-based gospel?
On the otherhand, if you deny degeneracy of all man, and elevate the free will of man, then the works would be inititated with a key component from man and done by a key component from man. Then you will get a works based gospel.
So the reason why you say that i am “sounds like adding works to the gospel. ” is because i assume you see my words from a free-will man perspective. Since man plays a key initiating and decisive role in your perspective of sanctification, obviously God would be then insufficient to bring about good works in your scheme, and hence man would then have grounds to boast, which is by little means scriptural.
I’ve tried to understand from your point of view as much as i can.
There is in the bible. Check leviticus. Just because theres a new term does not mean the idea is new. ‘Lie with another man’ = gay. Obviously.
If you want to continue to trot out Leviticus as proof against gays, you really should do a historical look at what this is referring to in the Ancient Near East.
As NC has said, if you want to make a Biblical argument against homosexuality, Leviticus is most definitely not the place to do it.
Dave,
Well the onus is on you to provide the links and the proof. You cannot expect me to believe you on your words.
I give more biblical proof that is consistent with levitcus.
Romans 1:21-28
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
This is away from leviticus. Tells the same story. It condems homosexuality saying
[26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones]
Homosexuality is defined by God. Who? By GOD as
1) shameful
2) Lust
3) Unnatural
It is talking about homosexuality ONLY as the prooftext/support is verse 27
. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Key word: IN THE SAME WAY men …. inflamed with lust FOR EACH OTHER.
So God makes it perfectly clear here that inflamation of lust (not even the act) itself is enough to count as a 1) shameful 2) lustful 3) unnatural. 4) a perversion (v27b)
A perversion of what? Of the natural order. Set by who? God. So what is the natural order? – man and woman.
Dave, its easy to critique, but hard to prove your point. So wheres your biblical counterarguement? Show me scripture and i shall believe u. No scripture, no arguement.
Lance,
You’re missing my point. Essentially you’ve put yourself in the position of either believing everyone who doesn’t see every single sin they commit, own and struggle with that sin as going to hell. Historically speaking that would mean anti-semites like Luther are in hell, likely Calvin as he never repented of executing sevetus, or the type of thinking that lead to Calvin doing that.
In effect, you’re now in the position of having to either justify or condemn everyone you know, because you’ve robbed the blood of Christ of the power to once, for all time forgive sin.
Dave,
The crux of the problem, which i challenge you is this. Do you think that historical proof holds more weight than Scripture? If so there are many ‘historical proofs’ aimed at disproving Christianity altogether. If thats the case, then you should be consistent and drop the faith altogether.
So the weight of history is less than direct scriptural context. Scripture always outweighs history as history is written by the conquerors and may contain falsehood. The bible is absolute truth.
The concept of an orientation of sexuality is not present in Leviticus. The Levitical texts are arguing for an ordering of the physical realm to reflect and be in harmony with the realm of the spiritual. The priestly understanding of the “holy seed of Israel” (see Ezra) is at stake in the Levitical texts. That is why the seed cannot be introduced to animals, during menstruation, and between males. It is a cosmologically disordered use of the “life giving substance”. You can’t make a moral argument from Leviticus in relation to homosexuality because there is no basis in the text for it. It is about an “ordered” creation. Not “morality” as we’ve come to understand it.
If it IS about morality in Leviticus then you must admit that the flow of the text puts sex during menstruation in the same setting of disordered morality–something that I don’t think any of us are willing to concede.
There is NOTHING in the text that arbitrarily indicates one of the acts in chp. 18 is a kind of “moral” cleaness vs. a ritual cleanness–either it’s all varying kinds of immorality or you have to cherry pick.
I don’t disagree in principle, Lance, I just don’t think a proper understanding of the Ancient Near East, the priestly cosmology and the social function of the Law in 2nd Temple Judaism lets us mount the argument from Leviticus without doing violence to the Levitical text.
K then, we don’t need to use the OT at all to show homosexual acts are sinful. The NT condemns homosexuality right along with lying. And Jesus affirmed traditional marriage and male/female relationships. Enough said. Drop the leviticus stuff. Homosexual behavior is wrong in God’s eyes. It’s wrong, it’s wrong, it’s wrong. Not that hard guys. I’m certainly not going to condemn that person, but I certainly will not affirm what they’re doing either. God is the Judge. Like the verses I quoted from 1 John 3, there’s a difference between still practicing while knowing it’s wrong and repenting and knowing it’s wrong.
Now, let’s get back to the issue at hand.
no scripture, no argument?
I say no Scripture, properly understood in context and intent, no argument.
Context is king, brother. It gives us clarity as to intent.
Intent means everything. That’s why historical scholarship helps us do to understand the Bible.
It’s not good enough to say, “I believe the Bible”.
We have to answer the question, “What do I believe the Bible says?”.
Tim,
You still don’t get the point. I said that God enables them to eventually repent, because the spirit of change/obedience of commands is given by God. Don’t run away from what i’ve said.
I’m sorry to tell you that while it sounds riddulous to you, GOD can and will make us see and repent of all things wrong if he wants to – we will not contribute a single part! I don’t think God has a limit here.
Now i thus infer that you are saying that God has no ability to make us repent of all things – because you believe in the FREE WILL of man and that man must participate in the seeing of sin and the repentance of it. WHICH I REJECT. Pls argue from my point of view.
Why are u insisting that i am adopting your free-will-man position? Your arguement is only valid for me IF i adopt that position, which i am NOT. Effectively you are accusing me of something which i am not doing.
You accuse me of being a thief who robs God? I am very hurt if you keep misrepresenting my position. I am sorry to say that if you insist on this misrepresentation, i see no point in explaning any further.
Is it not said that God is the 1) Author (i.e. initiator) and 2) perfector of our faith? What does it mean to be perfect? Is not perfection flawless? Perfection is doing ALL things correctly. If not enabled by God, how then can a man be perfect?
You base you hypothesis that calvin did not repent. How did you know? You base your assumption that luther did not repent. How did you know? Could it be possible that in latter parts of their life, God might have moved them to repentance? Absense of evidence does not provide evidence of absense! Lack of historical recordings showing personnal repentance of luther and calvin does NOT imply they did not repent.
But for the gay entering the church, we know at least he did not repent AT THAT TIME because well we ask this simple question.
” Do you think homosexuality is wrong and have you stopped it” If no for both, then he is unrepentant and proudly so.
Nc,
So are you in agreement or disagreement with me? I still would like to hold that homosexuality is a violation to God because it goes against God’s creation order, which you affirm.
And since it is defined as a sin by God, and God is the sole definition for good and bad morality, therefore homosexuality is immoral because it goes against God, and the act of going against God is immoral per se.
[Lance,
You’re missing my point. Essentially you’ve put yourself in the position of either believing everyone who doesn’t see every single sin they commit, own and struggle with that sin as going to hell. Historically speaking that would mean anti-semites like Luther are in hell, likely Calvin as he never repented of executing sevetus, or the type of thinking that lead to Calvin doing that.
In effect, you’re now in the position of having to either justify or condemn everyone you know, because you’ve robbed the blood of Christ of the power to once, for all time forgive sin. ]
Tim,
My comments to you were moderated. I did reply. You missed my point totally by because your arguement is based on the assumption that i believe in the free-will-man theology, which i certainly do not.
I have said time and time again that it is God who will enable us to see the wrong and it is he who will enalbe us to repent of sin. Since God is omnipotent, why can’t he enable those who he will save to repent of all sins before death?
But when you assume the free-will-man position, the free-will-man theologian assumes that man must contribute and without his contribution, God cannot function. Of course it becomes impossible to repent of all things then and thus it sort of becomes a works gospel!
If you choose to keep misrepresenting me, theres no point replying to your accusations. For the record, you accused me of robbing God while misrepresenting me. Thats slander. Also for the record, since you think that God cannot enable a person to repent of all things, you are assuming God somehow has some sort of limit in terms of how much sin he can handle for us. I think it is you who are the robber and now you are accussing me!
Next you assume that calvin and luther did not repent. Is historical records perfect? Must all their repentance details be made known to you or us? You make the asssumption and assert it as fact. How then different are you from the crn.com people? Do they not do the same thing that you decry?
That doesn’t even enter into the equation. Whether its willed by God that you think you’re a Christian, or whether you add to the gospel, the same problem presents itself: you have to either condemn, or defend sin that isn’t recognized. Which is exactly what you’ve done through this entire thread. You’ve tried to contend that the watchdoggies aren’t sinning when they lie, slander and abuse others.
And there you have it. The crux of the matter is that you think Luther and Calvin are in the Kingdom, and so you have to pretend that there’s some great, unrecorded repentance from them.
We haven’t even begun to get into the millions of Christians who died unrepentant of racism, or the various sins that have gripped ages from time to time.
I’d assert using your theology essentially the road to life has been narrowed so far to allow no one to enter.
Where’s Iggy when you need him???? Where did he go????
Lance, Joe C, and Dave M, you post here with much grace, dignity, higher level of conversation with these guys than I am able to do. I even accused Iggy of not being a Christian due to unclear, obfuscating language that he tends to use often. But enough about me.
Continue the “conversation”….
Timothy Bell this is probably the first thing you and I have ever agreed on. Praise God!
It’s cold in Michigan now; I wonder what the temperature is in Hell? Because I think it’s freezing.
I love you too, Chris!
By the way, the temperature in Hell, MI should be roughly the same where you are at.
I always wanted to plant a church in Hell MI, so I could say “Hi, I’m the senior minister of the First Church of Hell”.
Tim,
Or better yet, you could legitimately use the title “pastor from Hell”.
Tim and Phil,
You guys have more issues than SI.
For the record,
this is a conversation. It doesn’t need “qualifying”.
I don’t get it. I haven’t heard anything here that should make people frustrated with each other. We’re all just trying to understand where people are coming from.
Lance, and if there’s anyone else who needs clarity,
I’m concerned for the proper use of the Scriptures. The “ISSUE” of homosexuality is NOT the issue to me. The issue is where do people derive their support for their positions theologically. It’s dishonest to say…”Well, that’s the plain meaning of the text” WHEN context, etc. is not considered. The context is not just the larger flow of the text, but the historical setting/philosophy that text was composed in.
I know that the common critique of the emerging church is that we don’t value scripture, but for me I have such a high view of it I don’t want ham handed readings used for the sake of ease, ideology, etc. (TO BE CLEAR: I’m NOT accusing anyone here of that.) I’m just trying to make a case for Leviticus not being brought to bear on this issue…because I love Scripture and its proper use. I believe biblical scholarship bears out my point about Leviticus.
Some people may say that what I am doing is undermining doctrine, the bible, whatever, but that simply is not the case and it is an accusation that serves as a refuge for people to not really engage the issues of interpretation, scholarship, research, etc.
If it “goes there” then it just makes me wonder why people need so many bible verses when I’ve said repeatedly that “you can make an “anti-homosexuality” case WITHOUT doing violence to the function of Leviticus as a whole.
That’s my only point.
If that makes people feel “compromise” or “lack of clarity” on this issue marks my position, then that’s not really about me.
Anyway.
I hope that helps.
peace to all…in this CONVERSATION.
Joe,
I have stated this myself… so I am not sure what the issue is you are raising… though I see the difference is in our understanding between what has happened to sin on the Cross…
If one chooses to live in their sin, and be judged by their own righteousness… then they will be judged as so… they will receive what is coming to them and not inherit eternal life…
Yet, if one is a believer and struggles with gossip (which many fail to even see as a sin but it is right next to homosexuality) but the struggle itself means something has changed in that person… the same with anything else on the list, including homosezulity. Now, should one who is new and struggling hard in any sin be in leadership? Yes and no… if it is a sin like alcoholism or a open gay lifestyle… like knowing it is wrong but being weak in the flesh and ending up in a gay bath house. I would say no they should nto be in leadership…
Yet, all of us have struggles with sin… so to say one is lost who falls is not what the verse you quoted stated… it states, “Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.â€
It is one who practices sinning… it is their life and identity… they find who they are as defined by gossip, slander, homosexuality, gluttony, fornication, and on and on… and that was what many of us were as Paul would state.
Tim Bell,
I am still here for you to accuse of whatever… but bro I forgave you already so let’s move on from there OK?
Be blessed,
iggy
Lol, you guys are giving me a headache.
Iggy…dude…
You explained exactly what I did, I totally do NOT disagree with you. I posted those Scriptures for the exact reason you just explained them for…I wonder how you could have possibly thought I disagreed with you lol. There was absolutely no disagreement whatsoever, nor any difference on how we see the cross, from what you wrote right there.
The issue I was raising was that people were seeming to side step and dodge the issue that homosexuality is a sin, and like any sin, you can’t persist in it, keep doing it, as a way of life, willfully and unrepentantly, and actually BE a Christian, according to Scripture. I don’t think we disagree at all Iggy, but that’s just me.
So, happy trails Iggy!
Joe
Joe,
If I offended you I apologize. I am at work so might not have read as closely as I should have. Though i hope that you can see that if we agree then you are closer to being emergent than you realize and that the accusations against us might be most slanderous than is being acknowledged.
I know of not one person that states homosexuality is not a sin… I have heard of a rumor of one… but nothing to substantiate that rumor.
Most the time I see that we need to take a broader view and attack human sexuality as a whole… and that is Brian McLaren’s stated view.
Be blessed,
iggy
I’m probably not Emergent, and I probably never will be, but that doesn’t mean I think everything, or even most things, or even a few things they say are wrong. Unlike the ODMs who won’t even listen to you guys, and seem to misrepresent you, and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Everything you guys say is worth attacking, for them, it seems.
Anyways, we agree on this issue that these posts are about, and that’s good. Always good to have unity. Guess that’s why you need ‘conversation’.
Joe
Tim,
[You’ve tried to contend that the watchdoggies aren’t sinning when they lie, slander and abuse others.]
You are not reading my explanations. Before you even came up with the idea, i already qualified myself saying the direction of pride is important. If they lie and slander and do not repent then yes they will die as written in revelations. did not the bible write that. So what is the issue here.
I am not defending nor attacking the watchMEN. [Your tone is extremely impolite to them by calling them watchdoggies.] I have also noted their words can be skewed (ref my previous comments with reference to other posts..) The rest who did read my thread can astest to that fact.
YOU however, are consistently attacking the watchMEN without giving them grace/mercy, which you ask me to give to the homosexual sinners and i did. If this is not hypocrisy then what is?
[whether willed by God..... the same problem presents itself: you have to either condemn, or defend sin that isn’t recognized]
You cannot defend sin. If God is doing making us (100% God and 0% man) repent of our sins, then WHY are u saying as if I am the one who is making men repent. Again again again you have FAILED to represent my point of view, for the third time. I have already proposed the reason why you see it that way. Instead of answering it/ explaning it, you choose to IGNORE my explanation and keep asking me to answer a question that i have already answered!I am getting very tired of writing the same thing.
[The crux of the matter is that you think Luther and Calvin are in the Kingdom, and so you have to pretend that there’s some great, unrecorded repentance from them. ]
Why not? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If true, then i am not pretending and YOU are the one pretending that they somewhat failed to repent. You do not know the power of God – he is able to do whatever he wants to do – even if it means making them kill many and repent later. Paul is an example that is recorded. If a person like Paul exists, why not calvin? You are talking about the past. But we are talking about reality – where the gay in question can be acertained on the spot if he/she is still persistent in that act.
[We haven’t even begun to get into the millions of Christians who died unrepentant of racism, or the various sins that have gripped ages from time to time.
I’d assert using your theology essentially the road to life has been narrowed so far to allow no one to enter. ]
Is it not written TO ENTER BY THE NARROW GATE and few will enter? since God says it himself, then it must be true! Whats wrong with making salvation narrow? You somehow assume that salvation is for all. While it is offered sincerely to all, not all will get it.
[to allow no one to enter]
thats YOUR persppective. When God enables, even the impossible is made possible. Is it not written that God is the AUTHOR and the PERFECTOR of our faith. What is then meant by perfect? Is it not flawless? Sinless? Repented of all sin? And since God is the author , isnt that consistent with the idea that a man’s salvation was totallly by God?
The salvation of few is for God to demonstrate that his salvation is truly something that he choose and not universal; something special and not common! Again, you flunk when you adopt the free-will man, universalist position to look at this problem, and for good measure, assume that i have been adopting your position throughout this thread! You can continue to ‘asert’ but until look at yourself in the mirror, i fear you are only asserting this upon yourself.
If i do believe in free-will man, sure, your points are correct. If seen from man-degenerate-god does-everything point of view, ala calvin, your arguements have no weight and the problem does not even exist. I will not explain here because it had been given above.
Tim you are the author and i give you the last word. It is only right. I will not respond further. Lets move on.
Good conversation