Pro-Gay church leaves CBF

"Because it is God's call for our congregation to minister with gay and lesbian Baptist Christians and their families, we cannot in good conscience support an organization which discriminates against our brothers and sisters in Christ . . . any more than we could do so if the CBF discriminated on the basis of race or gender," Bethune wrote.

An emotional comparison between discrimination against unregenerate sinners, which is biblical, with race and gender discrimination which isn't, illustrates the depraved mind of Bethune.

There's a war going on: For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Eph 6:12 KJV) Satan is attacking the Church with every ounce of his being. He's influencing pastors to lead congregations astray, to accept homosexuality, abortion, divorce, ecumenism, to worship "signs and wonders" instead of God Himself., etc.

We all need to diligently pray for one another and for your pastors.

 

I agree with Wells and the CBF on this one...where is Chris Temple to judge the evil CBF...oh that's right...he has nothing to judge here...

Joseph

 

Hopefully University Baptist Church will be the only pro-gay church to withdraw. Unlike the BGCT, the CBF policy does not condemn gay churches. There are, in fact, still pro-gay clergy on the CBF Coordinating Council.

We'll see what the future holds.

Joshua

 

We are to accept and pray for homosexuals. We are NOT suppose to accept homosexuality because it is abhorrent to God. Why do liberals ignore the scriptures as if God was having a bad judgment day and pooh-pooh them? A better question is why are so many people having a romantic fascination with homosexuality? If God thought they were o.k., why wasn't there a single gay relationship discussed in the Bible. Probably in most peoples minds it was because God was old fashioned and way behind on the times and just not as "enlightened" as we are today.

 

Joshua,

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Lev 18:22 KJV)

I should pay particular attention to the "Thou shalt nots" of God's Word. When I see them, it is a warning flag that God is "dead" serious!

 

Three verses earlier, we are told with equal seriousness that we should not approach a woman (this includes our spouse) and make her naked if she is menstruating. Is God dead serious about this?

 

Joshua,

Come on . . . you're an ordained minister. That verse is referring to not having sex during a woman's menstrual period.

Good job of "bait and switch" though. Now back to verse 22 . . .

[ August 20, 2001: Message edited by: wellsjs ]

 

OK then, do you think God cares whether or not you have sex during a woman's menstrual period?

Joshua

 

I think God looks at it as detestable and unclean. Now, back to verse 22?

 

I suppose then that you also believe in the menstrual uncleanliness described in Leviticus 15?

My point, as you well know, is that we do not follow the Levitical code anymore. It was not meant to be taken in parts but rather as a whole.

Do you follow the entire Levitical code?

Joshua

 

So Joshua, we are supposed to just throw the old testament away a quit living a moral life because to do so is outdated. Hmmmmmm. I think Carl Marx thought that way too. Very interesting.

 

Bob, not adhering strictly to the Levitical code is not the same thing as throwing out the entire Old Testament. Do you follow the entire Levitical code?

Joshua

 

Joshua,

Even when Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, instinctively follow what the law says, they show that in their hearts they know right from wrong. (Rom 2:14 NLT) In fact, uncircumcised Gentiles who keep God's law will be much better off than you Jews who are circumcised and know so much about God's law but don't obey it. (Rom 2:27 NLT) Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. (Rom 3:20 NIV) For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. (Rom 3:28 NIV) Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. (Rom 3:31 NIV)

Jesus' perfect atoning sacrifice eliminated all the sacrificial laws, but laws pertaining to sin never have changed and never will!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wellsjs:
Joshua,

Come on . . . you're an ordained minister. That verse is referring to not having sex during a woman's menstrual period.

Good job of "bait and switch" though. Now back to verse 22 . . .

[ August 20, 2001: Message edited by: wellsjs ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why focus on verse 22? The verse Joshua quoted has to be taken in the same context. Is it sin for a couple to have sex during a woman's menstruation? If you accept the homosexual instruction as literal, then you have to accept this as literal as well since it is also defining sin.

Also, are we to carry out literally the punishments for sin listed here? When was the last time your church executed someone for sin?

This sounds an awful lot like selective interpretation to me, which is exactly what we Baptists accuse liberals of doing. In fact, that very accusation is in a post on this thread.

 

RobertLynn said, "Also, are we to carry out literally the punishments for sin listed here? When was the last time your church executed someone for sin?"

Got a problem with that, take it up with God. I didn't make God's laws, He did. There was a reason God was so harsh on His chosen people at this particular time, but I won't go into that here.

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." -- Lev 18:22

"'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period." (Lev 18:19 NIV)

The emphasis God placed on blood sacrifices as an atonement for Israel's sins has a lot to do with this command here. That is why women became defiled and ceremonially unclean from their mentrual period and had to go through the purification process afterwards. After the final atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, everything to do with blood sacrifice was abolished. Between this and that little bold word above, can you see that this is not selective interpretation?

 

RobertLynn said, "Also, are we to carry out literally the punishments for sin listed here? When was the last time your church executed someone for sin?" - The Apostle Paul probably would disagree with your soft approach:

I can hardly believe the report about the sexual immorality going on among you, something so evil that even the pagans don’t do it. I am told that you have a man in your church who is living in sin with his father’s wife. 2 And you are so proud of yourselves! Why aren’t you mourning in sorrow and shame? And why haven’t you removed this man from your fellowship?
3 Even though I am not there with you in person, I am with you in the Spirit. Concerning the one who has done this, I have already passed judgment 4 in the name of the Lord Jesus. You are to call a meeting of the church, and I will be there in spirit, and the power of the Lord Jesus will be with you as you meet. 5 Then you must cast this man out of the church and into Satan’s hands, so that his sinful nature will be destroyed and he himself will be saved when the Lord returns.

9 When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. 10 But I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or who are greedy or are swindlers or idol worshipers. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. 11 What I meant was that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Don’t even eat with such people.
12 It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your job to judge those inside the church who are sinning in these ways. 13 God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.” (1 Cor 5:1-5,9-13 NLT)

The reason we have such a problem with apostasy and heresy within the body of Christ is the Church hasn't headed Paul's instruction!

[ August 23, 2001: Message edited by: wellsjs ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wellsjs:
RobertLynn said, "Also, are we to carry out literally the punishments for sin listed here? When was the last time your church executed someone for sin?"

Got a problem with that, take it up with God. I didn't make God's laws, He did. There was a reason God was so harsh on His chosen people at this particular time, but I won't go into that here.

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." -- Lev 18:22

"'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period." (Lev 18:19 NIV)

The emphasis God placed on blood sacrifices as an atonement for Israel's sins has a lot to do with this command here. That is why women became defiled and ceremonially unclean from their mentrual period and had to go through the purification process afterwards. After the final atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, everything to do with blood sacrifice was abolished. Between this and that little bold word above, can you see that this is not selective interpretation?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've just given me your opinion and argument as to why your selective interpretation isn't selective.

If the penalties for one described sin in the Levitical law were abolished with the blood sacrifice, then the penalties for all sin in the Levitical law were abolished. You want to use the Levitical law to defend your position on homosexuality, then back off when that same law, in the same context, is used against your position.

You can think about it or call it what you want, it is selective interpretation. It leads to a legalistic Christianity of works maintained salvation, which is as biblically indefensible as being pro-gay.

[ August 23, 2001: Message edited by: RobertLynn ]