homosexuality is sinful?

CS,

I think what latterrain is responding to is the seeming arrogance with which we fundamentalists tend to approach the sin of homosexuality. It kind of disturbs me when I see posts that express homosexuality like it is some sin that is so much greater than other sins. Yes, it is an abomination to God. Yet so is a proud look, eating the peace offering on the third day, graving images, false balances, and all unrighteousness in general. We should remember that we all are capable of any kind of depravity without the grace of God. Homosexuality is very sinful and wrong. There are never any circumstances that can be used to justify that sin, nor can there be any circumstances used to justify any other. As for whether or not homosexuality is a choice, there can be no doubt that it is a choice. However, I believe that there may be a predisposition to it based on circumstances and external influences, just like someone may be predisposed to be a thief or a liar. We must learn to look on all sin as wicked and sinful, just like God looks at it.

By the way, the last time I checked, whether a person was a fundamentalist or not was determined by whether they agreed with the fundamentals of the faith. And a Baptist is one who believes in baptism by immersion, as well as the baptist distinctives. I have never seen a list of either that included homosexuality anywhere on the list. So why would there be a problem with someone who was a fundamental Baptist posting just because they disagree with someone else's viewpoint? I always thought that was what healthy debate was about. Or was the question just asked so that everyone would respond with **graphic remarks removed*** Let me ask this question- Can a person be a practicing homosexual and be saved? ***Murphy*** yes Dan I believe a person can be saved and practice homosexualty just as one can be a christian and lie. Sin is sin.


FundamentalDan

A fundamental, independent Baptist

[ April 27, 2003, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

Fundamental Dan...

To me the question would be...

Can a practicing Homosexual be saved...

and remain a practicing homosexual?...

the process of purification takes time...as we all know...we are all works in progress...

for example...Many alcoholics...drug addicts are saved...and slip...but when they slip...do not enjoy it...conviction is a hard thing...God has a woodshed ya know...and does not hesitate...to take us there...and wear us out...when He thinks we need it...

Isn't it...all about...becoming more like Christ...the image the Lord has of us...and submitting ourselves...surrendering to Him...and following His will...and not our own...

being a sexual devient...is definately not His will...Bible clearly tells us so...

Y'Israel...

 

Dan, you asked the question.

Can a person be a practicing homosexual and be saved?

A YES says that I am condonning Homosexuality.
A NO says that eternal security is not true.
Neither answer is correct.

Can a person be a practicing sinner and be saved?

A YES says that I am condonning sinning.
A NO says that eternal security is not true.
Neither answer is correct.

The real questionj should be, "Can a person be a practicing homosexual and be saved and be right? The answer then is unequivicably NO.

If someone starts the National Adulterers and Adultresses Task Force and proclaim that it is OK then you will hear the same condemnation coming from fundemental Christians as you hear now about gays except we will be using terms like "whores" and "harlots" and men going a "whoring". Same thing with the National Liars Task Force and the National Thieves Task Force and so on.

 

sorry Artimaeus...

I don't follow your logic...
if I am understanding you correctly...
you are saying none of us can be saved...
because we are sinners?...

and if one is saved...they sin no more?...

can a person be a practicing homosexual and be saved...
By the Power of Jesus Christ...and because of His Sacrifice...the answer would be yes...!!!
else we are all lost...

now if this homosexual...continues in that sin...would be to open another discussion...

 

Hi all. I will respond to your comments here in this one post rather than doing so severally. I apologize in advance for the length of this post.

First, I would like to thank all of you for your comments and suggestions. I do appreciate your taking the time and effort to respond. I would especially like to thank Fundamental Dan because he seems to understand where I'm coming from. Thank you Dan.

I'll start in order:

just-want-peace you said: "latterrain77, for some reason you seem not to get the point that this particular abomination is the ONLY one that is being foisted on us as..."

I agree that it is shameful when any group makes a public display of arrogance in an attempt to force or impose their unBiblical positions on others. However, those lurid displays and harsh words themselves are not the act of homosexuality itself, but rather the act of arrogance. There are plenty of arrogant heterosexuals who display arrogance in the same way (ie. radical feminists, those promoting abortion agendas, etc). There are also, sadly, plenty in the church who show MUCH arrogance too. Either way, a true believer should not return another's arrogance with arrogance (1 Peter 2: 23). A soft word turns away wrath (Prov. 15: 1).

You said; " If the "Adulterers" of the nation wanted to parade to get their lifestyle accepted, or pushed for legislation to criminalize unkind words..."

Angry words directed at others is un-Biblical. We are advised to avoid angry men, the type who often promote the use of "unkind words" and other contentious behavior (Prov. 22: 24, Prov. 31: 26). Our own speech should show evidence of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5: 22-23). Whether or not it is wise to legislate so-called "hate speech" laws is questionable as it could potentially open the door to all kinds of abuse. I think we agree on that one.

BBB you said; " This will come later as the convert recognizes the Lordship of CHRIST in his life - but certainly not as a sine qua non of grace."

Yes you are correct. That is what I meant in my prior post. We are ONLY saved by Grace (Eph. 2: 8) and the Matt. 20: 16 text is an EVIDENCE that we were actually saved.

Murph you said; " I must propose a litmas test for you my friend, I want you to soundly proclaim your belief that homosexuality is sinul.."

I've done that numerous times by my count (on this thread and the earlier one). Please re-read my first post on this thread. The FIRST word in it says YES! Why do you keep asking me to repeat it?

You said; "...but this is the most alarming quote from you thus far: " I also do not believe that it is necessarily a "choice" either."

You are spinning what I have said Murph. I said it does not NECESSARILY mean choice. I have also said that is NOT "in the genes." The "identity" theory of sexuality (heterosexual and homosexual) is a well documented and known concept. The "identity" theory implies choice, but it recognizes that the circumstances surrounding the choice were part of a non-choice history of events (as flatly stated in Ecc. 3 by the way).

You said; "I am sorry but as this is a fundamental forum with the posts presented being from a literal interpretation,...."

Am I a fundamentalist? You decide! I believe in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible, I believe that salvation is by Grace alone, I believe that Biblical truth trumps popular thought (as evidenced by our current debate here), I'm exceedingly opposed to abortion, I believe in the sanctity of the family including ONE husband and ONE wife and as many children as the LORD will graciously provide that husband and wife, I'm opposed to birth control in EVERY form (not just the chemical ones), I'm opposed to consuming alcoholic beverages in every form (including church wine), I believe in the literally truthful interpretation of the Scripture (ie. inerrancy) yet I most assuredly do NOT believe that Jesus was a literal "door with hinges" (John 10: 9), or that believers are literal "branches of a literal tree" (John 15: 5) or that Jesus is a literal "vine on a tree" (John 15: 5). I recognize that there is a deeper meaning to every historical account in the Bible (Mark 4: 2). I do believe LITERALLY that we are to love all men as the Bible LITERALLY says we must (Matt. 5:44). I'm confident that those who participate in this forum agree with the literal meaning of Matt. 5:44 and, that they do NOT believe that Jesus was a literal "door with hinges" (John 10: 9).

You said; "...if one believes that homosexuality is not a choice then I have a problem seeing why they qualify to post in this forum."

I will honor whatever decision you reach on this since you are the moderator of the forum Murph. That authority vests with you, not me. If you tell me to cease posting on the Fundamental forum I will.

Artimeus you said; " It is if you don't stop at verse 49 and continue on to 50. Exe 16:50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. Homosexuality is certainly not the only abomination but it is one of them."

Proverbs 6: 16-19 mentions abominations that GOD "hates." In order to be balanced in quoting Eze. 16:50, one is obligated to include all of the other abominations too. Since haughtieness is equally evident in some heterosexuals as it is in some homosexuals and, since heterosexuals also commit abominations (such as the Proverbs 6:16-19 ones) then the verse you raised must apply to heterosexuals too. It is unprofitable to single out one against the other. In the end, ALL people are sinners. ALL have fallen short of the glory of GOD (Rom. 3: 23).

You said; " Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. Therefore, I think it is quite reasonable that sodomy is referenced by that "abomination" in Exe 16:50."

Sin is the transgression of the law and, where there is no law there is no transgression (Rom. 4: 15, 1 John 3: 4). The laws of sexuality and their prohibitions were NOT yet given at the time of the Gen 19: 5 account. It should be obvious that the Sodomites could NOT have been "guilty" of Leviticus 20: 13 homosexuality because that law did not yet exist at the time. As a result, I do not believe the word "Sodomy" can apply to homosexuality when using Gen. 19: 5 as the proof text (perhaps it can with other text - but not that one). This is especially evident since homosexuality is EXCLUDED from the "sins of sodom" list of Eze. 16. Thanks! latterrain77

 

Okay, Latterrain; your final paragraph doesn't pass the giggle test.

First you quote Romans 4 and 1 John 3, and state that the events in Gen 19 happened before the giving of the law, implying that therefore Sodom didn't actually commit any sins because the law hadn't been given yet.

THEN you state that their list of sins is found Ezekiel 16, ALTHOUGH you've already stated that where there is no law, there is no sin.

And you boldly deny that abomination in Ezekiel 16 isn't counted because where there is no law, there is no sin.

You can't have it both ways, brother; either they sinned, and their list of sins is in Ezekiel 16--which includes abomination, of which "man lying with man as he would a woman" is proclaimed loud and clear as "abomination" in Leviticus--OR they didn't sin, in which case, now Ezekiel 16 is strangely in error.

Which is it gonna be?

 

Not a biblical concept. It is the product of modern experiential theology that is watered down. You cannot separate the sinner (who the person is) with what he does. He isn't a neutral object that sins. He actively desires to be a part of it.

All forms of same-sex sexual thoughts, relations, activities are evil and the product of a depraved mind. True believers are not same-sex in orientation.

Btw, why is this even on this forum? Isn't there a General Baptist discussions forum?

 

Forgive me, Murph, for the "graphic" remarks that you deleted out of my post. I personally did not think they were that graphic, but then again, I am not the moderator. So, if it offended you or anyone else, then I apologize. However, I personally think it is poor taste to put your response in my post, even though it is clearly marked as your response. Just my opinion there.

As for the history of the BaptistBoard, I am well aware of it. I joined in February of 2001 and know the board well, though I do not post much here. I am aware of some men who I tangled with that professed to be Christians and pastors, yet denied the truth of the Word of God. I told one of them that I thought he was a crook if he took money to preach a Bible that he did not believe was true anyway. So, I am all in favor of the view of inerrancy of the Scripture. However, I do not think anyone is questioning the inerrancy of the Scripture. I think they are questioning a line of thinking. Latterrain stated that he believed homosexuality was wrong. At least that is what I read. In my never so humble opinion, if you begin to pose litmus tests other than the fundamentals of the faith and the baptist distinctives, then this has gone from a "Fundamental Baptist" forum to a "Everyone-who-agrees-with-me" forum.

Also, the reason I asked the question about a person being saved yet a practicing homosexual is this- I work with a boss who is homosexual. He knows that I am a preacher and a Bible college student, and I have witnessed to him. He gives a very strong testimony that he was saved as a ten year old boy in a Southern Baptist church in San Angelo, Texas. Yet, he then admits in the same breath that he knows he is living in sin. I personally do not know how he can do that, but he is doing it. He knows how to be saved so well that he could lead others to the Lord, yet he lives daily in the homosexual lifestyle. I do not know what to think other than to leave it to God to take care of.


FundamentalDan

An independent, fundamental Baptist.
[email protected]

 

Classic example of the revivalistic, Hyles, easy-believism, 1-2-3 pray after me, I'll give you a hamburger if you say this prayer "salvation".

Scripture is clear. Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Jesus isn't a cafeteria where we get to decide how much of him we want to accept. He is LORD. If a person does not REPENT, he is NOT saved. REPENT is the first recorded word of Jesus Christ. It is also the first word of the gospel. Jesus preached it. Peter preached it. Paul preached it.

So many of these frustrations would be done away with if a biblical concept of salvation was embraced.

Btw, I bet he went down to the altar many times to get right with God.

 

so what you are saying...is hate the sin and hate the sinner too?...

now where in the Bible is that stated?...

***
Just for your consideration...

THE SIN...

1CO 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1CO 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

THE SINNER...

JOHN 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? JOHN 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

It is true that believers must NEVER condone...
or worse...endorse or affirm sin...
However...while we must unashamedly oppose all sin...including the current militant homosexual and pro-abortion social/political agendas...
with our total beings...
we are not called to condemn sinners...

We are called to love them (the sinners) in Christ...and to point them to Jesus that they may be saved from that sin...


Y'Israel...

[ April 28, 2003, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: Y'Israel ]

 

1) I see nothing that Jack Hyles has done that he should be linked in with 'easy believism'!

2) If this man is truly saved, God may let him get by with his sin for a season; but the day of reckoning will come. Some people think that they have escaped judgement just because God didn't strike them with lightening. Some even convince themselves that it is all right with God because he hasn't punished them......He will!!!

3) If you don't listen when God speaks in His still small voice, He might smack you. If you still don't listen, He will eventually hit you with a brick.


Sue

 

Sue, his fellow KJVO crowd have accused him of such. Do a random search in google or something on easy believism and Hyles.

Hey, if David Cloud accuses people of bad theology, it must really be bad.

 

DD: I'm sure I could find just as many web sites that extol his virtues.

I have visited his church and he preached the Word straight forward. I also had two children attend college there, one still attends the church with her family. The other Pastors his own church. They are all IFBs and believe the Word of God and live their lives accordingly.

Have you ever heard him preach? What is your main problem with him? When my kids attended college there, it was one of the greatest ministry, mission, giving churches in Indiana.

I'm not trying to start a debate here. I am seeking honest answers because I have never seen him do or say anything unscriptural. His books are fantastic as are his Christian papers fashioned in the same way as The Sword of the Lord. (BTW, that 'little scandal' was proved to be just that, a 'little scandal' which was caused by a rival Christian? paper trying to discredit Jack Hyles to take some of Jack Hyles thunder AND steal HIS Christian paper...it didn't work)

Oops! Sorry Murph. I didn't mean to hijack your thread. DD: Maybe you could start another thread on this subject and leave this thread to it's original purpose?

Blessings,
Sue

 

Sue, preaching something unscriptural is not the problem. Many, many people are out there preaching stuff that is scriptural.

It's the "putting it into practice" that Hyles came under fire about. Many, many of Hyles followers started putting emphasis on numbers, and that's still prevalent today. Visited a Hyles-affiliated church just a few weeks ago where the pastor said from the pulpit that he wasn't into the numbers game--but just about every five minutes there was something injected about how many people were at such-and-such a gathering, how many people attended such-and-such conference, how many people got saved last year, how many missionaries they support, etc., etc.

He said quite plainly that he wasn't into the numbers game, but in practice, he was totally into the numbers game.

Many, many stories from Hyles' college about "prizes" for soul-winning. Of course, that only encourages numbers and "say this prayer so I can mark you down as a soul saved" instead of actual salvation.

Those are the kinds of things that are meant when people associate Hyles with "easy believism."

Hyles was a great man, and a great preacher. Before he died, he even looked at what was going on, based on his teachings, and said that it wasn't right.

And homosexuality is sinful, plain and simple.

 

Sue, If you have proof of this would you mind sending me a PM telling me where to find it? I asked another Hyles supporter for a refutation of his adultery but didn't get anything satisfactory.

I have read some of Hyle's opinions directly from his own writings and heard him preach on the radio. He did promote a version of easy believism based on the premise that the only sin a person had to repent of to be saved was the sin of "unbelief."

 

I maintain that about 80% or more of all soteriological discourse of Christians, including Fundamental Baptists', can be rightly defined as "easy believism."

Consider the following:

http://lastdaysministries.com/articles/whatswrongwiththegospel.html

http://lastdaysministries.com/articles/whatswrongwiththegospel2.html

While "homosexual identity formations" are frequently a part of homosexuals' psyches, it is still chosen--both the behavior and the choices made that formed the identity along the way.

Sexual identity is partially defined by culture and social contexts, but you are missing three huge factors in your analysis; namely, the law of God written upon the hearts of all men everywhere, the light of conscience based in part upon the same, and natural revelation, with these all being sufficiently universal among all people regardless of their context (Romans 1-2).

Because God is God and has placed a conscience in all people and written His law on their hearts, all people KNOW when they are breaking God's law, and He always provides a way of escape and a way to live up to the light of conscience and natural revelation. Note that heterosexual activity in proper confines does not bring slight of conscience.

To maintain that a deed man does is not a choice requires one to be a behavioral determinist.

If behavioral determinism is true, with exceptions where God chooses to intervene in the natural order of man (e.g., Pharaoh, John the Baptist), the whole plan of redemption is a sham, and what it is built upon; namely the Biblical doctines of sin, guilt, defilement, and the need for cleansing and redemption unto justification.

We have free-will, because God does, and we are made in His image. While our free-will certianly is influenced by many factors, including the Spirit of God and cultural conditioning, influence does not equal negation. This allows for even the more Calvinistic takes on this matter.

We have to be born again because we are DEAD, spiritually (Ephesians 2). We are dead spiritually because we have fallen under the headship of Adam, and because we have chosen to sin against the light of conscience, the law of God written on our hearts, and natural revelation.

While it is true that the new birth bring a process of new identity formation (Romans 12:1-2), the core reason for the new birth is to make us ALIVE spiritually where once we were dead, not to give us a new identity. The new identity is a by-product of the New Birth, not the prime-product.

While a Christian can be a struggling homosexual, he or she cannot be an avowed practicing homosexual. If you have found an avowed practicing homosexual who claims to be a Christian, then you have found one who, while believing he or she has experienced the New Birth, is yet dead in their sins, or else extremely backslidden.

Reference:

http://lastdaysministries.com/articles/walkingoutofhomosexuality.html

Your arguments about Christians making a special picking point and hobby out of homosexual behavior are good. We should not do this, but model Christ who "hung out" with sinners.

As for the petty arguments about terminology, I would suggest we just ignore the matter and realize what folks are trying to mean, or else replace all terminology (homosexuality, sodomy, etc.) for the sake of argument with "acceptantly practicing sexual activity with a member of the same sex."

[ April 28, 2003, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Anthro ]

 

IN regards to the subject of this thread, I ask Latterrain to find the last post I made on page two, and please respond. Thanks.

 

I understand what you're saying, Rain, but I have to disagree.

The Levitical laws, including those things listed as abomination, were written (to my knowledge) at about the same time as Exodus and Deuteronomy. Or, more specifically, as far as chronology goes, in between the two.

That would mean the iniquities listed in Ezekiel 16 are just as invalid as the abominations, since the law hadn't been given yet, and there's not much you can find about God saying (until Proverbs) that pride is sinful. In fact, I'm not sure I've been able to find in Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy where pride is listed as a sin with a consequence.

Further, don't limit yourself to just the abomination listed in Proverbs. Ezekiel makes no claim that the Levitical laws are not being talked about, so any of the things listed as abominations in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy are equally as valid. Thus, we must return to the text and context of Gen 19, and look at what was going on, and the word usage. And up to that point, the word "know" had been used almost exclusively throughout Genesis to talk about sexual relations.

Thus, I disagree with you.