Episcopalians approve gay Bishop

Why don't the dioceses that are upset just switch their oversight to under the AMiA? www.theamia.org

 

The installation of a gay bishop does not just affect Anglicans. In a shameful repudiation of the Lutheran Confessions, the Evangelical Lutheran in America (ELCA) has agreed to participate in all future ECUSA rites of apostolic succession. So, unless the ELCA reneges on its agreement, the ELCA will also be ratifying the "apostolic succession" of a gay bishop.

 

How do you feel about the apostolic succession of woman bishops? And do you suppose that has negated or selectively negated the Eastern Orthodox recognition of Anglican succession?

 

Regarding the Bible and homosexuality, I've answered those questions ad infinitum on threads here. The short answer is that I don't think the three NT texts used to condemn homosexuality address the issue of committed, monogamous relationships.

Just to clarify, I unequivocally and absolutely affirm homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality as a sexual orientation.

Regarding the ELCA - I don't think that this will affect the Full Communion relationship. The ELCA is already in full communion with the UCC, a body which is openly welcoming and affirming.

Joshua

 

Praytell where in the Bible it says monogomous homosexual relationships are 'ok'.....monogomous heterosexual relationships outside of marriage are clearly not ok!

The purpose of the sacrament of marriage is to join man and woman into one flesh for the purpose of creating children and being helpmates to each other.


You have decided to let society dictate your religion and are bowing to that false god. No one can serve two masters.

May God have mercy on you.


LaRae

 

Sounds like a good time to start up another "Why sola Scriptura can't be true" thread!

 

Still avoiding the pointed questions?

Clearly - you believe as you do "in spite" of the text of scripture, not "because" of it. As in the case of evolution vs God's clear statement "For IN SIX days the LORD CREATED the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them" - and ON the sixth day CREATED - MAN - male and female. With that FIRST marriage God stated that "for this cause" - in defining the relationship between spouses - the marriage relationship.

Your faith is stated to be IN humanism from the start - in spite of the Word of God - NOT "because" of it - - at the very start.

Not surprise to "discover" that it continues to "evolve" down that path as time progresses.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Arguing for "moderation in homosexuality" is like asking for "moderation" in bestiality, moderation in incest, moderation in adultery.

It is a dead-end line of reasoning from the POV of God's Word.

But if you have decided that the very start of God's word is "optional" then why not every section that does not please you as well? Viva la humanism?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Notice that Joshuah never makes his case "because of God's Word". He makes it "in spite of it". Seeking to establish humanism and then to "bend" God's Word in some way that "hopefully" does not get in the way of the agenda.

In Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan, the homosexual agenda seems to me, is nothing more than the whore of babylon. That deceipt that smuggles its way into the very core of the Christian belief system, in the guise of "normal for mankind".

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

Stick to your guns Bob, You are absolutely correct in your interpretation of God's word.

For those who don't think Bob is right, all you have to do is ask yourself, but what if Bob is right? What does God's word say about those steeped in and succombing to sexual immorality? That's right, they too will be cast into the lake of fire along with the father of lies whom they believed.

 

I can think of several heterosexuals (men and women) who have had well over a hundred partners in their lifetime. I can also think of many homosexual couples that are in committed, monogamous relationships.

There is nothing intrinsic in homosexuality (any more than in heterosexuality) that leads to promiscuity.

I do not support an "anything goes" sexual ethic. I (along with many Christian ethicists and theologians) simply believe that the same homosexuality and heterosexuality should have equal treatment under the Christian sexual ethic.

Joshua

[ August 11, 2003, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Barnabas ]

 

Bob,

I wasn't aware I skipped a question. I don't think that one's position on homosexuality is related to a literal reading of the two Creation myths in Genesis. I know some gay Pentecostals who are biblical literalists.

Joshua

 

How do you feel about the apostolic succession of woman bishops? And do you suppose that has negated or selectively negated the Eastern Orthodox recognition of Anglican succession? </font>[/QUOTE]Confessional Lutherans believe that Christ has given the right to call pastors to His church, not to a hierarchy. One becomes a pastor through the divine call of the church, not through the laying on of hands by a bishop. So apostolic succession is not necessary in our churches. As Jerome opines, it is by human authority that offices of bishop and pastor are distinct. It is contrary to scripture and the Lutheran Confessions to call women or homosexuals to the Office of the Holy Ministry. However, the ELCA refuses to be bound by scripture or the Lutheran Confessions and, therefore, is not considered orthodox by Confessional Lutherans.

Yes, I would say that Eastern Orthodox would reject their apostolic succession because the orthodox consider the upholding of apostolic doctrine as well as the laying on of hands.

 

I agree. ELCA acceptance of the UCC indicates that the ELCA will soon have its own gay bishops and it may even approve same sex marriage.

 

"Suppose" that we were able to actually find someone who (as you say) accepts the integrity of the Bible - someone who stuck with the exegetical rendering of the text from Genesis through Rev - AND also was wanting to show "in the text" of Romans 1 - the affirmation of men-with-men who had "exchanged" the natural function of the woman in marriage relationships and were turning to act condemned in Lev 18 instead.

That person would have an interesting argument since "as you point out" they are clearly showing a pattern, a history of taking the Bible as "truth" rather than "fiction". They would have demonstrated that instead of derailing at the start "swapping the truth of God's Account - for the myths of humanism" - they were holding to the integrity of God's Word.

So - "how" would such a person continue that same "level of integrity" when dealing with Romans 1? That would be "fascinating" to behold.

The "every-day" position that you usually see in that regard, are people that already show they have little regard for exegesis or the integrity of scripture when it crosses the demands of humanism. They simply turn a blind eye to Romans 1 - and choose the gay-agenda "in spite" of the text - rather than showing their choice is "because of the text".

As much as we may not agree on a particular doctrine - my attempt is to point out that what is established is "a pattern". A "set of choices" that are consistent within both groups. The one - chooses integrity of the Word of God - and the rule of Exegesis. The other chooses to eisegete at the drop of the humanist hat and ignore the damage done to the Gospel, to the text of scripture etc.

But I would like to hear more of these mythical creatures that "do hold to the integrity of the Word of God" as you claim and STILL find loopholes in Romans 1 for homosexuality.

I would love to at least read what they are proposing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Josh gives us a typical example of those who either: (1) ignore Scripture, and/or (2) twist Scripture to justify sin--in this case, homosexuality. Sorry, but the reality is that homosexuality is NOT the equivalent of heterosexuality. The latter is God's design, the former is a perversion.

 

As this thread violates the new policy of 7/20:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000174

I am obliged to move it to the private forums.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration.

Clint Kritzer
Moderator

 

Reopened

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000174;p=3#000036