1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Rethinking Homosexuality

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by MarciontheModerateBaptist, Jan 10, 2002.

  1. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks, Joshua, for the link. It is probably representative in general of Daniel's thoughts on the matter, though I shall be content to let him answer for himself.
     
  2. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have watched this thread since its inception with a great deal of interest. I will state up front that I am in agreement with the majority of the other members in that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord, and that we must adhere to the scriptures if our philosohy is to retain its mettle. However, I think there is one point of Daniel's first post that has not truly been addressed:
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paynedaniel:
    In my opinion, the Christian church is rejecting a significant number of people based on who they are attracted to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Are there really churches that REJECT people for homosexuality? Sin is sin and I believe in the eyes of God all sins are equal. People who are homosexual are afflicted with a curse! I thank God that He did not give me such an immense stumbling block.

    Would a church reject someone for being a kleptomaniac? or a pyromaniac? One of the the church's missions on this earth is to SAVE.

    I do not condone homosexuality nor do I feel a church should wink at a homosexual lifestyle, but if we shut the door on one type of sin, will we find other sins unworthy of attendance to worship God as well?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Romans 3
    19
    Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
    20
    Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
    21
    But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
    22
    This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
    23
    for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
    24
    and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
    25
    God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--
    26
    he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
    27
    Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith.
    28
    For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
    29
    Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,
    30
    since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.
    31
    Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Just my thoughts on the matter.

    May God bless you

    - Clint
     
  3. JAMES2

    JAMES2 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2001
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    0
    Clint:
    It's not what the church rejects, but what the bible rejects that is important. If a person is seeking forgiveness, praying for salvation, has made a 180 degree shift in their behavior, then I'm sure most churches would try to be understanding and kind.
    If a person is continuing to shack with his/her boy/girl friend and expect God to approve of such behavior, then I think that person would be sadly mistaken. Sure sin is sin, but if you adopt sin as a way of life I believe that shows you are not regenerated, and therefore on the way to hell, and rightly so.

    I find all this God loves everybody philosophy repulsive, and very God-dishonoring. God is love, and He hates sin.

    Romans 1 doesn't seem to say, well, sinner, do what you want. God loves you anyway. After all, boys will be boys and sin is sin. God understands. Personally, I believe the Thrice Holy God, looks at this insanity and wants to vomit. When John had his revelation and God appeared, he FELL ON THE GROUND in the presence of someone so Holy.
    So, to answer your question -- are there churches that reject people because of their being a homosexual -- Iwould say, well I hope so. If they do not repent, change their ways, stop being depraved and ask for God's grace to help them reject their gross sin, then I think they have a real problem and are headed to hell. Forever. Without hope.
    If they continue in their sin, then they are not regenerated. And if not regenerated, then lost, no matter what they do.
    James2
     
  4. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    RE: Rethinking homosexuality.

    There is nothing to rethink...

    1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator (pornos), or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
     
  5. Scott_Bushey

    Scott_Bushey <img src=/scott.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2001
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi there boarders,
    Also a new guy! I do not intend to detour this thread and will happily move the topic I am about to address to another if the mediator so feels. I want to address something that Jaco stated.
    He/she writes:
    "When you go to the OT and start bringing out different laws and try to apply them to Christianity you make a mistake, for we are not under law but under grace".

    I am just curious Jaco, what laws do you feel have been done away with? What portion of the 10 commandements do you feel are not in effect anymore?

    In HIS graces,
    By His grip,
    Scott Bushey
     
  6. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Baptist
    James2:

    I understand your point, please don't think that I don't! Perhaps a definition of terms here is necessary.

    You said, "If they continue in their sin, then they are not regenerated. And if not regenerated, then lost, no matter what they do," and with this statement I agree. One must be regenerated to be saved from their sins, hence Biblical statements such as "Go and sin no more." I think what I'm driving at is can that regeneration occur without the help of the church?

    In other words, the term we need to define is "reject." If we are talking about rejection of membership by a known homosexual, then I think that is a point to be considered by the regenerated membership of that church. If the term applies to rejecting ATTENDANCE of a homosexual, the church is potentially turning away a lost sheep, or prodigal son, if you will.

    I guess my point is, in our modern society, the church has been stifled in society. If God has put it on someone's heart to attend then it is our Christian responsibility to reach out to that drowning individual.

    You also stated, "God is love, and He hates sin." Again we are in agreement. God hates the sin, but loves the sinner. The very basics of Christian philosophy state that "God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that
    whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish..."

    I appreciate your reply and may God bless you

    - Clint
     
  7. JAMES2

    JAMES2 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2001
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    0
    Clint:
    To address your last point first. I guess I never agreed with the idea that God loves the sinner but hates the sin. How do you seperate what a person does from what he is? It fact, we don't sin. We ARE sin, unless regenerated. Maybe we are saying the same thing but just a little differently.
    As for God loves the world I would agree to a certain extent. That doesn't mean everyone without exception. Jesus in John 17:9 says "I ask on their behalf: (the regenerated) I DO NOT ASK ON BEHALF OF THE WORLD, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are yours."
    For rejection, I'm talking about someone who is a practicing homosexual that sees nothing wrong with that. That person is obviously unregenerated and is REJECTED BY GOD. On the other hand, if someone is struggling with the issue and has changed his ways and attends church I don't believe that church would reject him. Only when he is not open to repentance for his gross sin.

    By the way whosoever believes will not perish is a statement I also agree with. EVERY SINGLE person without exception who believes WILL BE SAVED. Of course, a person won't believe unless God has REGENERATED him in the first place. Once regenerated, then he will believe.

    I don't believe the church should or would reject anyone who is trying to bring their life into conformity with the teachings of Christ. I think we agree on this. Thanks for the nice response.
    James2
     
  8. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thank you as well for the clarity, sir. - Clint
     
  9. JAMES2

    JAMES2 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2001
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    0
    Clint:
    If my post seemed a little disorganized, I was trying to type a response, talk to a friend that was talking nonstop about his experience teaching the morning Sunday School class, holding my granddaughter on my lap and talking to her, making breakfast, and being socialable. Wow, sometimes!!!!!!
    But I love it all.
    So, if there was something that didn't make sense or if I didn't answer your concerns directly, please forgive and ask me again. I'll try to stay more focused this time.
    James2
     
  10. MarciontheModerateBaptist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    0
    Garpier makes an interesting statement, and one which I believe exemplifies where Moderates and Fundamentalists go different ways. He makes the statement "Jesus was subject to Scripture while he was on earth." I beg to differ - Jesus was not subject to anything and is not now subject to anything. The Bible has become god to many fundamentalists, and it is impossible to discuss this issue if the Bible is going to be god. There is one inerrant revelation - Jesus Christ.

    Daniel Payne
     
  11. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Once we dismiss the Bible as being inspired, inerrant revelation from God, all bets are off. Thus, trying to reason from the Scriptures to someone who does this becomes futile since they have demoted the Bible to being just another book, as one moderate Baptist proclaimed in 2000.
     
  12. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daniel wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> There is one inerrant revelation - Jesus Christ. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    How do you know this?
     
  13. MarciontheModerateBaptist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    0
    TomVols,

    Why don't you qupote the entire statement from the gentleman who said the Bible is "just a book." Those three words are very misleading when taken out of the context of the rest of his statement. In fact, I just watched a videotape of the debate at the 200 convention. The context of his statement was that Christ saves us and is the only perfect revelation of God. This is classic theology - nothing out of the ordinary.

    Daniel
     
  14. MarciontheModerateBaptist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know Christ is the perfect revelation of God because of my relationship with him. The Bible backs this up, but I know Jesus first and foremost from my relationship with him, not from what the Bible says about him. I think fundamentalists misunderstand us when we say the Bible is not perfect. We do not mean that it is totally untrustworthy. We simply mean that it is a human document that records man's interaction with the divine, and will inevitably, at places, be mistaken. Error always occurs when humans are involved.

    Daniel
     
  15. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    The context of the statement made does nothing to vitiate the "just a book" portion. I'll be glad to post the entire comment as soon as I locate it on my drive. I wish I could post the gasps, shrieks, and looks of horror, even from some in the moderate camp, after this comment was made.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I know Christ is the perfect revelation of God because of my relationship with him. The Bible backs this up, but I know Jesus first and foremost from my relationship with him, not from what the Bible says about him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    1. How do you know your relationship is valid? What's the difference between your experience and a muslim's experience with Allah? An athiest's experience with reason? A pantheist's experience with nature? And is that all the Bible is? A crutch to base personal experience on?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think fundamentalists misunderstand us when we say the Bible is not perfect. We do not mean that it is totally untrustworthy. We simply mean that it is a human document that records man's interaction with the divine, and will inevitably, at places, be mistaken. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    2. How can we trust the Bible in some places when in some places it is mistaken? How do we know the difference? What if your "mistaken" areas are deemed trustworthy by another interpreter? Who is correct? Who is inspired enough to tell which spots are trustworthy and which spots are not?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Error always occurs when humans are involved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    3. So is Christ's virgin birth erroneous because a human is involved? Was Christ Himself erroneous because He was human?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I think fundamentalists misunderstand us when we say the Bible is not perfect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Nah, I think fundamentalists understand you just fine, unfortunately. :eek:
     
  16. JAMES2

    JAMES2 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2001
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    0
    paynedaniel:
    What you are saying is what is really wrong with the modern-day church. You consider the Bible a collection of books written by ordinary men, instead of the Inspired Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
    Now you say that the bible is ok, but since it is written by just men, it is not error free and you cannot learn about Jesus from that source. YOUR source is your own "experience" or "personal relationship" with Jesus.
    Instead of the written word of God, the modern church, I'm sorry to say, seems to agree with you about feelings, or experience being the guide to their theology. That's why we have such a mess in the church. If we are going to base our theology, our DOGMA, (yes the D word) the blessed word DOGMA, our DOCTRINE on our
    personal "feelings" or our personal "experiences" etc. how are you going to teach what the scriptures say to teach, what the Apostles say to teach?
    You say the Bible has errors so you can't base your, I guess you would say your feelings, on the written word, but you can base your theology on your "personal relationship" with Jesus. Don't you see the terrible subjective, relative position you are putting yourself in?

    There are as many different "personal experiences" as there are people, and most of them contradicting each other.

    Give me the written Word of God any day over the personal, subjective, feelings or experiences of the individual. That is building a theology on sand, where the wind and water just blow it away. That is exactly what is wrong with the modern mega-churches. No theology, no solid foundation, no teaching, no dogma, no creed, nothing solid.
    The ONLY objective source we have about Jesus, is from the written word, the word written by inspired men, carefully transmitted to the pages of the bible by the Holy Spirit--by the Triune, Sovereign God. We do not KNOW ANYTHING about God from our personal, subjective "feelings."

    Last night I heard this lunatic minister on the radio say he was taken to heaven by God. He "personally" saw God. God is 5'11", 185 pounds and has brown hair. He is telling a radio audience that he "experienced" this. It makes you want to throw-up or put a sack over your head and hide somewhere. It's foolishness like that that unsaved people hear and they think that is the norm in Christianity. This lunatic said "God personally told ME to tell MY PEOPLE, what he looks like and he is coming soon." It is such drivel as this that comes from basing your knowledge of God on "feelings." If you don't base your theology on the Bible, how can you refute such nonsense? The guy "experienced" that and his "experience" is just as valid as your "experience." I mean he went to heaven and talked to God. He "believes" that and teaches that. Without the Bible to set the standards that's the kind of junk people get into. What an absolute disgrace to the Body of Christ!!!!!
    James2

    [ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]
     
  17. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    paynedaniel, has it ever occurred to you that you don't know Jesus and His lifestyle apart from Scripture? You are working backwards. The only way you know who Jesus is is through the Scripture.

    I would also like to say that I think the name of this thread is excellent. I think we should all rethink the issue of homosexuality. Those who think that homosexuality in any context need to think about the issue without their head in the toilet. Those who think it is always a sin without exception need to think of why we continue to argue with these people.

    Jesus and Scripture (the infallible testimony of Christ) condemn homosexuality. However, these threads I believe fall under Titus 2 which says to rebuke twice and then consider the person as warped and sinning being self-condemned.
     
  18. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Preach,

    Please show me where in the Bible Jesus condemns homosexuality.

    Joshua
     
  19. JAMES2

    JAMES2 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2001
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rev. Joshua:
    Preachtheword just answered you. Read the last paragrah of his post.

    Show you in the Bible???? It is absolutely hopeless and a waste of time to discuss ANYTHING with you. I pray that the Holy Spirit REGENERATES you, so you CAN understand the things of God (1 cor. 2:14). I hope you don't refer to yourself as a "christian minister-person-clergyman..person," or whatever nonsense you use. How can you, with a clear conscience live a live of a "christian" minister, then deny the very doctrines of what you pretend to teach? I don't mean to be mean or harsh, but you may be misleading alot of people in your "church" and how can you live with yourself? My last comments to you.
    James2
     
  20. MarciontheModerateBaptist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why do fundamentalists feel they need a cut and dry answer for everything religious or theological. Why are you scared of uncertainty? The job of the textual critic is to find those portions of Scripture that are more reliable than others. Inevitably, some parts of Scripture will be less than reliable. The Bible is not a take all or leave it book. Unfortunately, theology is not so simple. I think many portions of Scripture that speak of Jesus or which supposedly contain his words have been proven to be reliable. And these portions of Scripture show us Jesus as he is. Other portions of Scripture, though, contain man-made ideas of who Jesus is and what his purpose was on earth. Jesus never claimed to be a political ruler. In fact, he claimed just the opposite. Matthew, however, portrays Jesus as one who has come to bring a new political order (hence, the "kingdom of God" phrase throughout his gospel). You can water down this phrase as much as you want, but to Matthew, this was certainly an earthly kingdom of God. That is what the Jews expected. This is one of many examples in which the biblical writers "re-imagined" Christ as someone he was not. My point is, we must be careful with Scripture. Who did Jesus say he was and what did he teach" The answer is often in opposition to what his followers thought he was saying. This is the task of interpretation - the real, historical Jesus vs. the Jesus of faith enshrined in man-made theologies.

    Daniel Payne
     
Loading...