Would You Let a Known Lesbian Perform at Your Church???

The only sin mentioned in the Bible that cannot be forgiven is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That has been interpreted several different ways, but we are not talking about that here, are we? The Roman Catholics have a list of deadly sins, not forgiveable, one being suicide. Romans is quite clear, the wages of sin is death. It did not say, deadly sins, or sins that are worse on my handy dandy scale of sins above a certain point. Romans also says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. So please tell me, how is the end result of one sin on your deadly list different than the sin that is not on your deadly list that is not forgiven by Jesus's death and Ressurection? The last time I checked, there is only one Lake of Fire.

 

Whether or not you are technically right, if the lost are bound for one hell (Lake of Fire), what difference does it make what the unforgiven sin was?

 

It seems hard to interpret Jesus' words any other way.

I don't know that it does, but that wasn't the question. The question I was answering was about whether or not all sins are equal. And they are not, as we can tell from differing penalties. I think you are answering the question, "Are all sins sin?" And the answer is yes.

 

How does spending eternity in the Lake of Fire differ from spending eternity in the Lake of Fire?

 

Perhaps in the same way that life in prison in a maximum security facility differs from life in prison in solitary confinement in a maximum security facility. While all analogies break down, and there is no good analogy to hell, we all recognize that there are degrees of punishment. It seems to me that while all unbelievers spend eternity in the Lake of Fire, there are levels or degrees of punishment based on a number of factors.

Earlier, I listed a number of passages that indicate some sort of degree of punishment. Obviously you don't think they are wrong, so what do you think they mean?

 

Believe it or not, I can read just like you. This is what the verses you listed do not mean to me: that one location in the Lake of Fire is twenty degrees cooler for a gossip monger than it would be for say (what is our favorite sin to condemn) a drunkard.

 

I know. And as I said, I think you believe the Bible. I wasn't insinuating anything about either. So I am not sure why the smart aleck and seemingly hostile response. All I am asking for is your understanding of the verses.

What they don't mean is not really the issue. I am just wondering what you think they mean.

I am not sure how it is a "greater" punishment. I really don't know. But I am not sure what other meaning we can attach to the words of Scripture.

Feel free to disagree with me. It doesn't bother me at all, and it may be wise to disagree with me. But please don't be hostile about it.

 

I did not mean to give the impression of being hostile. I suppose from a certain mindset, it could be argued that sins are not all equal, but since the consequence from our human perspective at this time seems the same, I for one would not want to stake my eternal destiny on getting a lesser punishment. Aside from that, how can we as flawed beings begin to figure out which sin is worse than the other from God's perspective, except the clues He gives in the verses you cited?

 

Update one year later:

Camelback Bible Church (pastor serves with Baptists Albert Mohler, John Piper, Mark Dever, and Thabiti Anyabwile on the Council of The Gospel Coalition) once again was the site of the "Boys to Men" extravaganza on Nov. 6, 2010.

From the Phoenix Metropolitan Men's Chorus ("a voice of the LGBT community") website:

 

Jesus equated a man's lust toward a woman to be adultery. I would have to say, that even if the woman did not act upon her inner desire toward the same sex, she would be just as guilty as if she had physically committed the act.

 

I've erred before in this respect & it is easy to do; its what political correctness is all about... the so called 'critical thinking' that our kids... & even ourselves have come to practice... where we (w/o realizing it) actually are questioning our values & inclined to compromise.

.....but, seeing sin in the light of God... it is rebellion, pure & simple: there is no common ground for dialogue w/ the devil: We should follow the pattern Jesus set... he gave an answer but he didn't engage in a discussion.

When we chose to discuss positions about sin w/ the one who has a particular sin... the 'common ground' is often not 'common' at all..... it is based upon Biblical foundational principals which some refuse to accept... and it is that very ground we stand on & give up to dialogue while another is seeking to justify his sin:

True, we all have sinned & fall short of the glory of God: But is it the sinner who justifies his sin or is it Christ who justifies the sinner? If Christ has truly justified the sinner...He did so out of grace & mercy, saying "Go & sin no more." Nowhere in scripture does Jesus justify sin. If a sinner has been justified by our Lord, and received the benefit of salvation, the COSTLY grace & mercy of God.... why does he (the "saved" sinner) yet attempt to justify his own sin, continue to identify with it through practice & defense?

=======
But, concerning performances in a church which may involve renting facilities for other purposes, I propose the following consideration:

Our laws & our government is not like it was just a few years ago..... where a person or a body of people had broader freedoms to choose with whom they would freely associate with. There are local & state ordinances & regulations now being imposed upon businesses & organizations, including the church, which make certain demands under specific conditions: Before condemning a particular church or ministry, perhaps it might do us well to investigate to see if the case is that such was the result of legal force, coerced, or threatened w/ suit upon refusal to rent to another. We have not taken a stand in the past over such government intrusion into the church's own territory: we haven't covered for our neighbor.. the same rights which we ourselves desire... when his turf, his morality, his doctrine ...was different from our own .... but was not the issue concerning protecting all our rights: We have difficulty even making a distinction: If we have failed already to walk with the footman... as times become more difficult & the persecution of the Church becomes more intense... how can we be expected to run w/ the horsemen?
===========
Personally, I believe the church has the right to accept whom it will & reject whom it will: Government should not interfere nor be used to threaten or regulate. Scripturally, I think it is wrong for a body to give the appearance of condoning a lifestyle of sin which is against the word of God, by bringing it into its ministry or leadership: A singer/ entertainer/ preacher/ or teacher, etc., (i.e. who is a practicing sodomite) should not be allowed to minister to its people. But then this begs a question: What about 'groups' like AA and Al anon? What about allowing tea-party meetings?.... Here the question might revolve around.... is the church offering its facilities as a service to special needs & purposes within its community as separate from its own particular ministry... or is it actively engaging in its promotion? ......Now, do you see how confusing "dialogue" can get.... when a simple straight forward stand would be easier. Actually the decisions should be easier.... if the church still has the rights that it did in 1900, where it could allow that which it allowed & reject that which it choose to reject: What, here, is the problem? If God has given us our rights... then our rights given by God are above any specific recognition in our constitution. If this is so.... then where is the church as these rights are being slowly eroded & infringed upon? Where is the church when its a school in a neighboring district? Where will be the church when it is a family in the neighborhood who wishes to home-school their children? Where is the church on campuses which discriminate against passing Christian's who have made the grade in their education w/o conforming to the globalist worldview? Where is the wealth of those in the church body... who continue to give their beneficiaries to foundations or research which supports the deceptive lies of socialism, deceptive science, false economics? No one of us can be everywhere.... but the church has its primary purpose to in everything it does... to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ & to minister the message of salvation to the lost: Second & accessory to this calling is disciplining Christians in the areas of each ones talents & gifts into an active, fire-y ministry of his or her calling to be salt & light at work & in the community, to believers first, but to those who do not believe also...the mission field in our own back yard. The purpose of fellowship & church extends beyond that of worship, preaching & teaching.... to that of encouraging one another.... & that also may mean to back up one another when oppression threatens or comes.

 

I wonder who told this woman she has a right to be a Christian, or where she got this ideology? Where's her transformation and her repentant lifestyle? The thinking that she has a right to be a Christian is so infused with American culture and personal rights views that it is in fact a corrupt Gospel, which really is no Gospel at all, showing through yet another lens that what she is embracing isn't real Christianity. The first lens being that she is a practicing homosexual (I prefer that term over lesbian, as when you use it to describe the woman side of the issue, people are shocked and say "I never thought of it that way").

No one has a right to the Savior, no one has a right to heaven, no one has a right to be forgiven, and believers have no right to live however they feel, no matter what arguments they present in order to justify themselves.

 

Amen, preacher. I had no rights. If I had got the justice I deserved I would have been bound for a lake of fire. Thanks be to God for his Grace. But you cannot remain in sin and get it.

 

Amen back to you.


The Pharisees are a case in point. They too, sinful, and unregenerate, thought they had a right to the Kingdom, but were denied.

This homosexual woman is just as self-righteous as they.

What of the one who came to the marriage, with no garment? I suppose too he felt he had a right to be there? Matthew 22.

 

Truth be known, many think they have a right to be Christ's but are not.

Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

If you had told me back in 1969 after I became a Christian, that one day Baptist would even be discussing whether or not to allow a Sodomite to perform in church, I would not have believed you. Of course, then if you told someone that my city would have a open Sodomite as mayor, I wouldn't have believed you either.

 

The sad thing is, many "pastors" and "christians" see nothing wrong with sin in the camp.

Many will get as close as they can to what they believe to be the dividing line between sin and holiness, thinking 'as long as I don't go that far I am ok.'

Who decides the line? God? or man? In the end, who will God want to know one was obedient to? One's own flesh? or God's Word?

 

Facebook photo album chronicling performance of the PMMC ("a voice of the LGBT community") at CBC (whose pastor serves with Albert Mohler, John Piper, etc. on The Gospel Coalition board).