‘Nashville Statement’ condemns LGBT Christians and those who support them

Good. There should be NO compromise on this issue.

 

Dissent does not equal hate, although it will not be viewed that way.

 

As a woman, I say PTL! The scriptures are not ambiguous or ambivalent. Marriage is defined in Matthew 19.

John Piper

 

The blood of Jesus cleanses from all sins, so why would holding to gay views damn someone then? I DO uphold the scripture viewpoint regarding human sexuality, but also think that how one views this issue by itself is not damning/heresy in the biblical sense of that term!

 

Regarding those who disagree and choose to support such, Jonathan Leeman, editorial director of 9Marks, counsels:

www.9marks.org/article

"so many of the decisions we must make pastorally, and so many of the situations we are asked to speak into, are in the realm of implication or application....Can parents attend the wedding of their gay son?"

"I want something inside of you to feel nervous about binding people’s consciences when you’re out on the tree branch of a logical extension from Scripture. Let me give an illustration (and the important thing here is not that you agree with my posture on the illustration itself): Suppose a church member asks me, 'Can I attend the wedding ceremony of my gay son?'"

"I personally would not attend, since it seems to give approval to the sinful relationship....I have to combine a couple of logical steps to reach this conclusion. So I would warn the inquiring church member about the very real possibility of sin in attending this wedding, but there’s just enough reserve in me because we’re dealing in the realm of logical implication or application, that I would not move to excommunicate the parent who arrives at a different conclusion than me."

 

Bob, it is a true statement. Approval is a departure from sound Christian teaching. It does not automatically follow that those who are guilty of such departure are apostate. They may just be seriously wrong.

 

T'other side of the coin: Perspective | Seven simple ways to respond to the Nashville Statement on sexuality

And I would not place much theological store on an organisation that also affirms the subordination of the Son and thus is heretically Arian.

 

Would you say the same thing about practicing homosexuality?

 

That article is a piece of garbage.

 

Matt Walsh: Progressive Christians, you are ‘loving’ people straight into damnation.


.............
As just one example, an alleged priest named Father James Martin responded with some sweet and sappy declarations of his own, meant to counteract the terrible and bigoted Nashville Statement. He proclaimed that “LGBT people are some of the holiest people I know” and that “God loves LGBT people,” etc. Yes, obviously it’s true that God loves LGBT people, but the clear insinuation is that one cannot believe God loves LGBT people and also affirm Biblical teachings on sexual morality. He sets up a false choice between love and truth. This is the game that Satan plays in our culture, and men like James Martin are more than happy to be his pawns in it.

Indeed, the Martins of the world are far more dangerous than blatant heretics. To my knowledge, Martin has never flat out said that the Bible is wrong in its teachings on sexual morality. Rather, he shouts down any conversation about sexual morality by insisting that God loves gay people, as if anyone has disagreed with that notion. This is the most common method employed by the “Christian leaders” who wish to pervert and destroy Christianity from within. Instead of publicly contradicting Christian teachings about sexuality and gender, they simply refuse to discuss the subject except to proclaim that God loves everyone regardless of what they do in the bedroom. This is supposed to be the “loving” approach.

Matt Walsh: Progressive Christians, you are ‘loving’ people straight into damnation.

 

A perceptive article at the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals:

www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/a-few-questions-about-the-new-cbmw-statement

"the Trinity debate, of which CBMW was of central concern, and the teachings on masculinity and femininity that have been taught from their website, at their conferences, and by their most well-known leaders, still hasn’t been dealt with."

"You can’t pretend that there were no problems with your whole movement and then continue to try and lead the way with a new statement. If you continue to teach harmful stereotypes and promote unorthodox teachers that are not in line with Nicene Trinitarian doctrine, you can’t be a trusted name for me no matter how many good signatures you get."

 

As opposed to the blatant heretics behind the Nashville Declaration?

 

Either the blood of Christ is sufficient or it isn't. And conservative Christians haven't exactly covered themselves in glory on this issue:

A church's journey towards inclusion | Inclusive Church

 

Those holding to homosexuality as being acceptable would indeed be turning aside from the scriptures on this issue, but is not a damnable heresy, such as denying jesus is God, the resurrection for example!

 

The blood of jesus covers all sins, but there is also a mandate to make sure one is in the will of God as outlined by the scriptures themselves!

 

The person doing such a thing would either be really saved and yet in rebellion against God, or never was really converted!

 

Which is, ironically, what some of those behind the Declaration have done.