 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Former Gay Man's Music Ministry a True Blessing | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 3/6/2003 12:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | Iconoclast
I am a little confused here. Are you making the point that without direct contradictory evidence we cannot conclusively say that Sodom was not destroyed because of “the rampant practice of homosexuality”?
Alan
No. That is not my point at all. Your claim that "The Bible is crystal clear that the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality and of course raping strangers who happened to wander into town" was entered in this discussion to oppose the claim that Sodom was destroyed for the practice of homosexuality. Thus you are making two distinct claims each of which needs to be defended. These claims are (1) that Sodom was destroyed for various reasons (inhospitality, rape, not helping the poor, etc.) and (2) that Sodom was not destroyed for its homosexuality. You have supported (1), and I have no disagreement with you there. But you haven't supported (2). My point is that Sodom was destroyed for many reasons and we cannot infer from passages like Ezekiel 16 that sins that are not explicitly named as reasons for Sodom's destruction that there were no other reasons and that homosexuality was not one of them. That's all I was trying to say.
Iconoclast
My view is that most people ignorantly believe that if someone is homosexual then they are also child abusers, rapists, fornicators and so on – just like they view what the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were.
Alan
I agree wholeheartedly with you here, Icon. It is certainly illegitimate to infer that homosexuality necessarily brings with it all those other sins.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 3/6/2003 12:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia
Alan, are you aware that 95% of all psychologists patently deny what you are saying here? Your “science” is about thirty years or so out of date.
Alan
Well...it looks like most psychologists are wrong or confused on this issue  . Seriously, though, the issue isn't how many psychologists support a viewpoint but why. In 1973 when the APA officially declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder it did so primarily for political reasons, and not because the science of thirty years ago was refuted.
Semeia
Most cases of homosexuality CANNOT be explained by "external factors that psychologists have identified." Most psychologists agree that the causes of homosexuality are not well understood – but that clearly there IS a genetic component, as well as potential environmental factors, and in either case one’s sexual orientation is determined at a very young age, before the onset of puberty. But of potential environmental causes, the "dominant mother/distant father" scenario has been COMPLETELY debunked for some of the reasons that Empiress has identified elsewhere.
Alan
As for Empiress' evidence, I'm not impressed. For rebuttals see www.narth.com/menus/born.html. The most that twin studies, search for "gay" genetic markers, and such indicates is that some people have a greater disposition toward homosexuality than others. I grant that. What the studies don't even come close to showing is that genetic or innate factors are sufficient by themselves to cause homosexuality. What the evidence does show is that homosexuality results from a combination of a wide range of factors covering both nature and nuture, with nuture playing at least as important a role as nature. Here's a quote from Dr. N. E. Whitehead that supports this position:
quote:
The scientific truth is - our genes don't force us into anything. But we can support or suppress our genetic tendencies. We can foster them or foil them. If we reinforce our genetic tendencies thousands of times (even if only through homoerotic fantasy), is it surprising that it is hard to change? Similarly, we have a genetic tendency to eat, but it is possible to foster this tendency and overeat for the pleasure it brings. If we repeat that often enough, we will not only reinforce a genetic tendency to become overweight, but find that "starving" the habit takes a long time!
In summary:
1. No scientist believes genes by themselves infallibly make us behave in specified ways. Genes create a tendency, not a tyranny.
2. Identical twin studies show that neither genetic nor family factors are overwhelming.
3. Conclusion 2 will not be altered by any research in the future.
4. We can foster or foil genetic or family influences.
5. Change is possible.
www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html
Semeia
I take from this that you consider yourself NOT essentially heterosexual, just dispositionally and/or behaviorally. So I guess I can conclude that you COULD change if you wanted, and if homosexual sex was the accepted standard you would be able to change and start having anal sex with another man, given the fact that heterosexuality is NOT an “essential” property of who you are. So if everyone told you it was not only okay to have gay sex, but that it was absolutely a sin to have straight sex, you would be able to change to gay sex, or alternatively, stay celibate the rest of your life?
Alan
Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. There is a large enough nuture component in everyone's sexual orientation that anyone could develop strong homosexual attractions given the right combination of environmental factors. And the opposite is possible too. Nurture can counteract nature.
Alan said:
There is no contradiction between hating the sin (the behavior) and loving the sinner (the one disposed to the sinful behavior). In fact, this is the very attitude God takes toward us (he hates our sin but loves us) and that he commands us to have as well (we are to "love our neighbor" and "hate evil").
Semeia responded:
Could you tell me what this would look like concerning a remarried person who hadn’t been divorced for the right reason (according to Jesus) and thus was living in an ongoing adulterous union (according to Jesus)? ... What would loving them look like? How do you “hate the sin” in this case?
Alan
The sins at issue are divorce and adultery. These sins are in the past. The adultery is not ongoing because the new marriage, even though not Biblical, nullifies the old one. They should stay married. In this case, as in all cases, one "hates the sin" by encouraging them to recognizing it for what it is, confess, and repent. One "loves the sinner" by extending forgiveness and friendship, and by helping the new couple to not repeat the same mistakes.
Semeia
Also, tell me what this would look like concerning an overweight person who was involved in the ongoing sin of “gluttony” ...? Do you find it helpful to tell people how much you hate the “sin” of which their fat is evidence? ... Do you find that telling overweight people that their overeating is sinful helps them?
Alan
Again, to "hate the sin" involves recognizing it as such, confessing, and repenting. If the "glutton" doesn't realize that it is a sin, then "loving the sinner" may require helping them to "hate the sin". If they don't hate it, they likely will not have the motivation to change. "Loving the sinner" involves friendship, accountability, support and encouragement, and so on.
Semeia
Jesus was not looking for followers who would be the Sin Police for their brothers. The Pharisees fulfilled that role – they went over the scripture with a fine tooth comb, and they pointed out the sinfulness of others with religious fervor, and no one ever measured up. They did this so effectively that Jesus himself didn’t measure up, and they killed him for his lawlessness. They looked at love and called it evil, being blinded by their conviction that it was about the law, and not about the person in front of them.
Alan
Eloquent, but one-sided. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees because they were self-righteous, because they were trying to justify themselves in God's eyes, and because they imposed all sorts of un-Scriptural legal burdens upon people. The Pharisees' problem was they misunderstood the law and they actually thought they were able to keep it and had kept it. Jesus told them they were wrong on all counts. But Jesus took the law as seriously as the Pharisees did--more seriously, in fact (see the Sermon on the Mount). He came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it. And he proclaimed the law, calling people everywhere to "Repent! For the kingdom of heaven is near." And later on he commissioned his followers to go and make disciples of all nations teaching them to observe all that he had commanded them (Matt 28:19-20). He calls us to obedience and commands us to call others because it's not simply about "the law" or "the person"--it's about both. For the law is good, it is the expression of God perfect moral character and of his concern for our well being. His commands are not burdensome. It is how we were designed to live. To live it is joy. The essence of the law is to love God completely and then to love others as ourselves. Thus loving others entails hating sin, which always binds, blinds, enslaves, corrupts, and steals our joy. That what Jesus came to save us from. He came to save us from our sins so that we could live in accordance with "the perfect law that gives freedom" (James 2).
Eph 5:11 "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them."
James 5:20 "Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins."
In Christ,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/6/2003 5:47 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Iconoclast
These are contradictory DEFINITIONS of sin. Jesus violated #2 because He transgressed the biblically-defined law of working on the Sabbath when it was clearly NOT necessary
John Earp Not true. Jesus did not break the law, only the Pharisees' interpretation of it. Plucking heads of grain in order to eat was not breaking the Sabbath. Jesus perfectly obeyed the Father always, and was "tempted in all points just like us, yet without sin."
Icon: Jesus transgressed laws freely in the service of loving others.
John: I must strongly disagree. Jesus never broke the law, he never sinned.
John, you keep arguing that Jesus never broke the law BECAUSE He never sinned. I am saying that Jesus broke some laws AND He never sinned. In other words breaking a law is not necessarily sin. Do you see that your argument is circular. I provide clear evidence of Jesus breaking a law and you deny that He broke a law BASED on your logic that to break a law is sin and since Jesus never sinned therefore the law He ostensibly broke must not really be a law. This is circular or self-sealing logic.
Lets say the speed limit is 55 mph and you are driving 60 mph. Are you breaking the law? Yes. Now lets assume that the reason you are driving 60 mph is that your wife is about to give birth. Are you still breaking the law? Yes. Would a cop consider you guilty and give you a ticket? No.
You keep arguing that since the cop would not consider you guilty you did not really break the law. But that is a false argument. You did break the law. The reason you are not considered guilty is that there are mitigating circumstances – there is a “higher” law. The reason Jesus did not sin was not because He did not break any laws but rather because of His essential unity with the highest law which is to love God and one another. Thus we say He fulfilled the law. Love fulfills the law. It doesn’t seek to never transgress a law for its own sake – else it would fail to fulfill the law.
This was the problem with the Pharisees. They would refuse to drive over the speed limit when their wife was giving birth because they were more concerned with being righteous than they were about loving other people.
The law back then was that someone who committed adultery should be stoned. The Pharisees tested Jesus to see if He would break this law when they brought a woman caught in the act of adultery before Him. Jesus, of course, refused to condemn her. He broke the law. And yet He did not sin. Jesus determined that the most loving thing to do was to NOT condemn her. And if you think that this was NOT breaking a law, imagine a police officer who sees someone commit a murder and decides to let them go.
1 Corinthians 6:12 - All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
Paul says very clearly here that all things are lawful for the Christian. This was widely understood by the early Christians and Paul does NOT refute it.
John Earp
This is what is known of as the moral law of God--loving God supremely and one's neighbor as oneself. As long as one has this basic ultimate intention of loving God supremely and one's neighbor as oneself, for the time being that person is not sinning.
Iconoclast
I agree. As long as we are acting out of love for God and each other then we are not sinning. Therefore when we transgress a law while acting out of love we are not sinning. Therefore transgressing a law CANNOT be the definition of sin. Therefore the fact that Jesus did not sin is NOT proof that He never transgressed any law.
A very specific example of transgressing a law while acting out of love is when the German citizen who is hiding a Jewish person in his house lies to the Gestapo agent at the door.
Another example is when Dietrich Bonhoeffer conspired to kill Adolf Hitler.
Thus, you really have no basis to take a stand against monogamous gay marriage because of your interpretation that scripture says it transgresses the law.
The only valid scriptural argument against gay monogamous unions is to argue that this is a behavior that will come to dominate them. Which specifically means that it will come to prevent them from acting out of love – that it is antithetical to loving action. We know that acting out of love means that we are not sinning. We know that to NOT act out of love (no matter what we are doing) IS sin (whatever does not proceed from faith is sin). Thus you have to make a case showing that gay monogamous sex is antithetical to acting out of love.
This is what Paul is talking about in his famous sin list. They are all sins that are antithetical to acting out of love – they are all sins that come to dominate us in such a way as to prevent us from acting out of love.
Lets look at Paul’s list in 1 Corinthians 6:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor temple prostitutes, nor those who frequent temple prostitutes, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
These are clearly descriptions of a person’s character – the character of someone who has become dominated by these things to the point where they are incapable of loving another person. Just think about any total alcoholic you know – are they going around finding ways to love other people – or is it always about them? Is someone addicted to any of these things capable of loving other people? No. THIS is the problem. These things are antithetical to taking loving action. And without actually taking loving action toward others, none of us shall inherit the Kingdom of God.
Now, is being in a committed gay relationship anything at all like these things? Absolutely not. I mean, come on now, look at the list – what doesn’t fit? Car, truck, airplane, beachball, motorcycle, train. Now look both ways so you don’t get run over by a beachball. Be careful driving one of them beachballs – they are really hard for other drivers to see.
The case I am making is that for a homosexual person who submits to God (and who God chooses not to change into a heterosexual person) it is better to marry (monogamous commitment) than to burn with passion. The reason Paul said that it is better to marry than to burn with passion is that burning with passion can cause us to become dominated by sin – to become dominated by lust, or fornication, or drunkenness or whatever. It is quite evident to anyone who chooses to be open and enter into a non-judgmental relationship with a gay couple that their relationship does not in any way lead to them becoming less loving – quite the opposite. The assumption that it does is what makes gay people so mad at Christians. Most Christians seem to have this view that being gay is the same as being some sort of an addict, or a drunkard, or a fornicator or in general someone totally dominated by sin. This is an outrageous accusation and a false judgment. It is why gay people tend to see Christians as being bigoted and unloving toward them. And it is really hard to defend us Christians against this charge.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 03/06/2003 10:56:27 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/6/2003 6:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Can you show in the OT where picking grain on the Sabbath because one was in need of food was a sin? It was not a sin to eat when one was hungry on the Sabbath.
If a person murders someone (unlawfully takes their life), can they at the same time claim they love God supremely and their fellow man equally?
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 03/06/2003 11:16:19 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 3/6/2003 6:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan said:
The sins at issue are divorce and adultery. These sins are in the past. The adultery is not ongoing because the new marriage, even though not Biblical, nullifies the old one.
Semeia:
I'm sorry Alan, but that is simply not true. If the new marriage nullified the old one, then it wouldn't be adultery, now would it? But Jesus clearly called it adultery. Adultery is sex outside of a sanctioned marriage. Jesus called remarriage adultery. The adultery doesn't just happen the first time you have sex - it happens EVERY time you have sex. Jesus said, if you divorce your wife for any reason other than unchastity, you cause her to commit adultery, and you cause any man who marries her to commit adultery. How in the world do you get from that the idea that the new marriage nullifies the old, and the sin is in the past? Jesus clearly places the sin in the ongoing future - even as he assumes that the woman WILL remarry.
It's very frustrating to me that the people on the other side of this argument say that we are playing fast and loose with scripture when we point out that until recently the word now translated as "homosexual" was translated as "masturbator" - and there is no word derivation research that supports the change, and yet the same people want to deny what Jesus clearly says about divorce. Especially because this is exactly how this scripture has been interpreted for thousands of years, and has been the grounds for keeping divorced and remarried people out of the church. It is only within the last thirty years that the church has changed its stance on divorce - and NOT because there was any new understanding of what that scripture means, but because people finally realized that you cannot unscramble eggs, and it was unconscionable to reject people for not living up to God's ideal, given the fact that none of us live up to God's ideal.
Matthew 5:32 32 "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except unchastity causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
Alan, please tell me how the sin of adultery Jesus is talking about here is in the "past." It is clearly in the ongoing future: whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. Are you trying to argue that it is only the first time they have sex that it is adultery? That is not logical. When is the adultery happening that Jesus is talking about? You have to agree that it is happening DURING THE REMARRIAGE.
Alan said:
Again, to "hate the sin" involves recognizing it as such, confessing, and repenting. If the "glutton" doesn't realize that it is a sin, then "loving the sinner" may require helping them to "hate the sin". If they don't hate it, they likely will not have the motivation to change.
Semeia:
This is one of those things that Christians often say that nevertheless the weight of psychological evidence does not support. Hating one's sin in some cases (this being one of them) is actually a very poor motivation, and only tends to hinder people who already have a significant degree of self-loathing. Overweight people are not confused about the connection between overeating and weight gain. They do not need to be told they are sinning. They need to be loved and adored for who they are right now, and that will give the motivation for them to change what they want to change about themselves. To call attention to the "sin" of gluttony to an overweight person is not a loving thing to do, and it is NEVER helpful. Pointing out that their health is at risk, and that you love them and want to see them around for a long time, and you don't want to see them hurt, IS a loving response - but ONLY if you plan on being HELPFUL and walking side-by-side with them in their struggle.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 3/6/2003 6:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan said:
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees because they were self-righteous, because they were trying to justify themselves in God's eyes, and because they imposed all sorts of un-Scriptural legal burdens upon people.
Semeia:
You're saying it's unscriptural to rest on the Sabbath? Or to stone an adulterous woman? Even Jesus didn’t say they were being unscriptural. He overcame their arguments not by entering into a debate over scripture, but by nullifying their accusations through loving action. The Pharisees were largely correct about what the scriptural law was – the problem is the way they used it – they used it to accuse and condemn other people. Jesus even said that it was okay to do what the Pharisees said – it was just not okay to do what they did. The law is not to be used to accuse and condemn others – this is, in fact, what Satan (ha-satan which means The Accuser) does. Jesus showed that the law was to be used to help other people. That the law was fulfilled by loving action toward others. And notice that Jesus’ example of loving action toward others meant being kind and forgiving to prostitutes and tax-collectors and hammering the religious folks for their self-serving judgments of others. That really ought to give us pause before we go around condemning homosexuals. Jesus even went so far as to say that the prostitutes and tax-collectors were going into Heaven before the religious folks.
I think Jesus was being totally loving to the religious folks. The problem with the religious folks is that they think they are being mostly righteous and are therefore okay with God based on their own good behavior. This is the most dangerous trap of all. When we start believing that we can actually be sin-free because we are mostly complying with all of God’s laws is when we become most unreachable by God’s love. The prostitutes and tax-collectors recognized Jesus’ love for them; the religious folks did not. The problem with the Pharisees was not that they didn’t follow God’s laws very well – it was that they followed them SO well they thought they could take Heaven by the force of their own righteousness.
thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard
Edited by - Semeia on 03/07/2003 12:18:00 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/6/2003 8:05 PM (GMT -6) | | John wrote: quote:
Interesting how Paul, the so-called apostle of grace, did not view the idea of Christians living free from all known sin as an absurdity or an impossibility, but rather makes it quite plain that normal Christian living is to be free from sin
From the Tract John links: quote:
Anyone who deliberately sins proves he does not have such a heart. It is a logical contradiction, and a natural impossibility, for one to hate sin and deliberately choose to do it, or to really love the welfare of others, yet deliberately do harm to another. It is impossible that one could love God's honor, while at the same time deliberately sinning, to God's great dishonor. A man cannot serve two masters (Matt 6:24), God and Self. Pure and polluted water cannot flow from the same spring. Whoever willfully and knowingly sins against God or man manifests the hidden self-gratification and unconcern for others that constitutes a wicked heart.
The doctrine so prevalent in both Catholicism and Protestantism that a man can deliberately sin and still be saved is the greatest deception of all times. It is the opiate of the hypocrite.
A few thoughts…
First, I can certainly appreciate the concern of the tract writer when Christians flagrantly sin and hurt others and still claim to be Christians. However, there needs to be a sane middle ground in which we acknowledge that Christians will sometimes fail in their desire to live free from sin. A spouse may deliberately say a cruel word to their spouse in anger...it doesn't mean they're not Christians. More on this below.
John Earp quote:
Not true. Jesus did not break the law, only the Pharisees' interpretation of it. Plucking heads of grain in order to eat was not breaking the Sabbath. Jesus perfectly obeyed the Father always, and was "tempted in all points just like us, yet without sin."
Jesus never sinned, that is right. But Jesus did break the Sabbath laws as detailed in Scripture which demanded no work be done whatsoever: “Work must be done for six days, but the seventh day will be a day of complete rest, consecrated to God. Anyone who does any work on the Sabbath day will be put to death” (Ex. 31 15). And the Jews did put Jesus to death in keeping with this Scriptural injunction. The reason Jesus’ “law breaking” was not sin was because Jesus was serving a higher “law” of love, the greatest command to “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
The Gospel of John explains very clearly that Jesus was working on the Sabbath and was breaking the Sabbath “It was because (Jesus) did things like this on the Sabbath that the Jews began to harass Jesus. His answer to them was, ‘My Father still goes on working, and I am at work too.’ But that only made the Jews even more intent on killing him because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he spoke of God as his own Father and so made himself God’s equal.”
quote:
Icon Jesus transgressed laws freely in the service of loving others.
John I must strongly disagree. Jesus never broke the law, he never sinned.
When we correlate “keeping the law” with “not sinning” we get into trouble because Jesus broke laws and STILL was without sin. This made no sense to the Pharisees and it will make no sense to us if we think in terms of the Old Covenant.
John said quote:
1. True Christians should perish the thought of continuing in sin that grace may abound (Rom. 6 1-4). Those who would change this verse to read, "LET us continue in sin, that grace may abound," have conclusive proof that they are yet unregenerate. A true Christian hates sin in his life, and will do whatever it takes to rid himself/herself from it.
I agree. We should hate sin in OUR life and do whatever it takes to rid OURSELVES from sin.
quote:
2. True Christians are given power over sin through their identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (entire chapter of Romans 6 4-14).
3. True Christians are no longer slaves to sin (v.6)
4. True Christians are free from sin (v.7)
5. True Christians are to consider (reckon) themselves dead to sin and alive to God through Christ. (v.11)
6. True Christians are commanded to "not let sin reign" in their mortal bodies, not to obey its lusts. (vv.12-13)
I think all of us would agree that this is what Christians are called to aspire to. We are no longer “slaves” to sin and we do not let sin “reign,” but that does not mean we will never ever falter. As James writes in 3:2 “For we all trip up in many ways” and exhorts Christians to “Confess your sins to one another” (5 16). Why would James require Christians to confess their sins to one another if Christians never ever sin?
But yes, we must HATE the sin in our own hearts and strive to overcome sin our entire lives. To do otherwise would be hypocritical!
BTW, you do realize that in defending homosexuality I am not defending “sin” in that I am saying that homosexuality is not sinful because it is not chosen. Sin must be chosen, it cannot be “inevitable” or else it is not sin. Sin implies culpability and sexual orientation is not something one makes a conscious decision about; therefore a homosexual is not “culpable” of anything unless they sin through promiscuity or lust, etc.
John said quote:
7. Being under grace as opposed to law does not mean "sin all you want and you still get to call yourself a Christian and go to heaven." (v.15)
I don’t hear anyone saying that we can “sin all we want” and still call ourselves Christians. The Christian will earnestly desire to avoid sin at all costs, and if they ever falter, they are quick to repent and seek forgiveness. They also show mercy to others even as they have been shown mercy from God.
John said quote:
8. That Christians, because they have obeyed the truth, have already been freed from sin, and are now slaves of righteousness, (v.18) and the outcome of sanctification/holiness is eternal life (v.22).
And the New Testament defines “righteousness” as “faith.” “His faith was accredited to him as righteousness.” “When someone, without working, puts faith in the one who justifies the godless, it is this faith that is reckoned as righteousness” (Ro.4:5). To become a slave to righteousness is to live by faith.
John said quote:
In other words, sanctification and eternal life itself is by no means automatic upon a one-time repitition of a so-called "sinner's prayer," but is perpetually conditioned upon a life of radical discipleship to Jesus Christ.
I agree we must live a life of radical discipleship to Jesus Christ, but that does not mean we will become “sinless.” While we must demonstrate our faith through works as James describes, it is not our works that save us and it is not being “sinless” that saves us.
Eternal life is not conditional upon our sinlessness as Paul says so clearly, “If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and if you believe with your heart that God raised him from the dead, then you will be saved. It is by believing with the heart that you are justified, and by making the declaration with your lips that you are saved.…for all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Chapter 3:1-14 of Galatians bears repeating:
“O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Did you experience so many things in vain?--if it really is in vain. 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? 6 Thus Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." 7 So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." 9 So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith. 10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them." 11 Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for "He who through faith is righteous shall live"; 12 but the law does not rest on faith, for "He who does them shall live by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree"-- 14 that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Jesus says, “And eternal life is this: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”
John, what is your response to these verses?
John said: quote:
The radical oneness of true Christian faith and obedience is perhaps no better expressed than here
John 3 36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
The translation you use creates a tension that is not present in other translations. The NJB for instance says, “Anyone who believes in the Son has eternal life, but anyone who refuses to believe in the Son will never see life.”
Nevertheless, the way we “obey the Son” IS by having faith in him and that will naturally lead to good works but not necessarily “sinlessness.” Jesus is not somehow contradicting himself… as he says in verse 18: “No one who believe in him will be judged; but whoever does not believe is judged already.” There is a difference between justification and sanctification, and while we ARE justified by faith, the sanctification process endures our whole lives. Most importantly, our justification is not dependent upon our sanctification, our sanctification comes about because of our justification.
quote:
Matt 7 13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. Matt 7 14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
It is odd to me that people assume Jesus is speaking about heaven and hell in these verses. The context these verses occur in has to do with very practical advice for here on earth with the Golden Rule occurring just before and warnings about false prophets right afterwards. These verses do not occur in the midst of a discussion of salvation. Rather, a better understanding of these verses is that Jesus is speaking about the dangers of THIS life. The “gates” are not the gates of hell and heaven but the many dangers of life on earth.
quote:
Matt 7 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven {will enter.}
Matt 7 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
Matt 7 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
The key verse is the statement: “but he who does the will of My Father” and so we must ask, what IS the will of the Father?? The will of the Father is to have faith in the Son!! Jesus explains this in the chapter preceding in 6:40: “This is my Father’s will: that whoever sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and that I should raise that person up on the last day.”
Those who merely use the name of Jesus but do not believe in Jesus are condemned in these verses.
Thanks,
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/7/2003 1:20 AM (GMT -6) | | E:
All you say below is that homosexual orientation (and its temptation) is not an act of sin; the act of sin itself is sin. That'a all you said.
quote:
BTW, you do realize that in defending homosexuality I am not defending “sin” in that I am saying that homosexuality is not sinful because it is not chosen. Sin must be chosen, it cannot be “inevitable” or else it is not sin. Sin implies culpability and sexual orientation is not something one makes a conscious decision about; therefore a homosexual is not “culpable” of anything unless they sin through promiscuity or lust, etc.
And WHO here hasn't said that already.
"Willing" to follow that "-ity" into action is sin. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/7/2003 6:10 AM (GMT -6) | | POW said: quote:
E: All you say below is that homosexual orientation (and its temptation) is not an act of sin; the act of sin itself is sin. And WHO here hasn't said that already.
I think I'm confused by your point POW. If being a homosexual is not a sin then BEING a homosexual is not a sin. If one's sexual orientation is not chosen, then how can we call it a sin if one simply lives out that orientation? Being a heterosexual is not a sin, and we don't call falling in love a "temptation" for heterosexuals. Sin for a homosexual is not merely being who they are, it would have to involve sins such as promiscuity or lust, etc., same as a heterosexual. If a homosexual fell in love and wanted to marry a person, I cannot for the life of me understand how that is sin or "temptation" anymore than if a heterosexual person did...both are being who they are, living according to an orientation they never made a conscious decision about.
When John keeps arguing continually in this thread that we cannot "condone sin" and against "Sinnianity" it sounds like he still doesn't understand the point being made that no one here is advocating for sin, they are advocating for the idea that homosexuality is not sin.
What is more difficult for me to understand however, is his point that true Christians will never fall into sin and that justification and sanctification occur instantaneously such that if one is not completely sanctified the moment they are justified, then they are not really justified. This opens up the entire debate of justification by faith! If John is correct then any Christian who sins deliberately after being justified is not truly justified. I think that means a whole host of us, that is, any of us who admit to having ever sinned "deliberately" since we first put faith in Jesus, are not "true Christians." But it obviously ruffles less feathers to debunk the doctrine of justification by faith on this forum than to say that homosexual monogamy is not a sin. How very odd.
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/7/2003 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | | E.
G. K. Chesterton might identify your arguement above as DETERMINISTIC.
quote:
If one's sexual orientation is not chosen, then how can we call it a sin if one simply lives out that orientation?
He had much to say about the Will. He would take your remarks to task.
(More to follow...) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/7/2003 3:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's something that strikes me as a bit ODD.
Classic Feminism posits that gender is NOT an essential part of our humanness and firmly states that gender will pass away with this life.
"Traditional" Christian position regards gender as being part of who we are as individuals, but regards male and female *together* to be in the image of God.
Those on this site who argue that homosexuality is not sin and that practicing homosexuality is not sin, and that homosexual marriages are actually something must, it strikes me, be arguing from just the opposite extreem: that sexual activity is an essential part of our humanness.
The comment I made about these arguements resembling the DETERMINISM that Chesterton discusses (He talked about "environment" -- but it works the same way here.) is rightly applied to point out that affinity does not necessarily mean that one must choose a behavior.
Many have pointed that out to the homosexuality-philes. But they don't seem to accept that observation. They get offended.
OBVIOUS AXIONOMIC DIFFERENCES.
But what troubles me the most is that to make such allowances for continued sin (of ANY sort) and then apply it broadly (as cheep grace) is simply not true, and is quite dangerous.
And what seems most troubling is not those who live as practicing homosexuals, but those who tell them that it is just fine, and normative.
The one caught up in sin is not quite so culpable as the false shepherd.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/7/2003 3:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Empiress: If one's sexual orientation is not chosen, then how can we call it a sin if one simply lives out that orientation?
PoW: Here one's sexual orientation is statured as a kind of determining inner-environment, that DETERMINES action, defeating the Will (and responsibility).
G. K. Chesterton: The determinist does not believe in appealing to the will, but he does believe in changing the environment. He must not say to the sinner, “Go and sin no more,” because the sinner cannot help it. But he can put him [*****]; for [*****] is an environment.
PoW: GKW points out that the Will is important. One CAN be told "go and sin no more."
But that is not fashionable. And it offends a whole point of view that has so carefully defined and defended the rightness of sin.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 03/07/2003 8:33:20 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/7/2003 6:17 PM (GMT -6) | | POW
The one caught up in sin is not quite so culpable as the false shepherd.
Iconoclast
That is a really good point POW. Jesus was very clear in his behavior and his rebukes that the prostitutes and tax collectors were in WAY better shape than the Pharisees. But wasn't the problem with the Pharisees that they laid a whole bunch of burdens on the people by accusing them of all sorts of sins without doing anything to help them? Didn't Jesus say that they were guilty because that said that they could see? Isn't accusing practicing homosexuals of being sinners who won't go to heaven (even if they accept Jesus into their hearts) exactly the sort of thing the Pharisees did?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/7/2003 6:41 PM (GMT -6) | | From the Tract John links:
quote:
Anyone who deliberately sins proves he does not have such a heart. It is a logical contradiction, and a natural impossibility, for one to hate sin and deliberately choose to do it, or to really love the welfare of others, yet deliberately do harm to another. It is impossible that one could love God's honor, while at the same time deliberately sinning, to God's great dishonor. A man cannot serve two masters (Matt 6:24), God and Self. Pure and polluted water cannot flow from the same spring. Whoever willfully and knowingly sins against God or man manifests the hidden self-gratification and unconcern for others that constitutes a wicked heart.
The doctrine so prevalent in both Catholicism and Protestantism that a man can deliberately sin and still be saved is the greatest deception of all times. It is the opiate of the hypocrite.
Empiress said: A few thoughts…
First, I can certainly appreciate the concern of the tract writer when Christians flagrantly sin and hurt others and still claim to be Christians. However, there needs to be a sane middle ground in which we acknowledge that Christians will sometimes fail in their desire to live free from sin. A spouse may deliberately say a cruel word to their spouse in anger...it doesn't mean they're not Christians. More on this below.
John responds: And the ad hominems begin! For the record, I won’t say or imply that you’re insane, Empiress. :) As to your second-to-last sentence, that is a non sequitur; no one is saying, “One sin and you’re automatically not a Christian anymore.” If you’re going to argue against a position, basic integrity and honesty would require that you at least get their position down correctly. Many Christians (including the pre-Augustinian church fathers, Wesley, Finney, and the holiness movement) have believed that Christians can in fact live free from sin by the grace of God. It was only after Augustine changed his views in his disputes with Pelagius that Western Christianity began to embrace the idea that:
1. Sin is a “substance” passed down through copulation (instead of a thought, word, or deed).
2. Sin is therefore part of man’s physical make-up, and thus;
3. Sin is something that a Christian can never be free from until one’s physical death; i.e., Christians must sin always, more or less.
4. Unconditional predestination, irresistible grace, determinism, etc.
(All the above points are directly contradicted by the universal testimony of the early church fathers prior to Augustine’s innovations, which were in fact little more than his Manicheism infused with Christian terminology).
Empiress said: Jesus never sinned, that is right. But Jesus did break the Sabbath laws as detailed in Scripture which demanded no work be done whatsoever: “Work must be done for six days, but the seventh day will be a day of complete rest, consecrated to God. Anyone who does any work on the Sabbath day will be put to death” (Ex. 31 15). And the Jews did put Jesus to death in keeping with this Scriptural injunction. The reason Jesus’ “law breaking” was not sin was because Jesus was serving a higher “law” of love, the greatest command to “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
The Gospel of John explains very clearly that Jesus was working on the Sabbath and was breaking the Sabbath “It was because (Jesus) did things like this on the Sabbath that the Jews began to harass Jesus. His answer to them was, ‘My Father still goes on working, and I am at work too.’ But that only made the Jews even more intent on killing him because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he spoke of God as his own Father and so made himself God’s equal.”
John replies: Jesus never broke the Sabbath; what he “broke” was the Pharisees’ interpretation of how the Sabbath should be observed. There is no Scripture in the Torah which forbids feeding oneself on the Sabbath. As to the miracles Christ did, these also in no way violated a clear command of the Torah. Please show where it is stated in the Torah that one could not give a blind man back his sight on the Sabbath.
Empiress said: I think all of us would agree that this is what Christians are called to aspire to. We are no longer “slaves” to sin and we do not let sin “reign,” but that does not mean we will never ever falter. As James writes in 3:2 “For we all trip up in many ways” and exhorts Christians to “Confess your sins to one another” (5 16). Why would James require Christians to confess their sins to one another if Christians never ever sin?
John replies: Of course, if one sins, one is obligated to confess and forsake it (Prov. 28:19).
Empiress said: And the New Testament defines “righteousness” as “faith.” “His faith was accredited to him as righteousness.” “When someone, without working, puts faith in the one who justifies the godless, it is this faith that is reckoned as righteousness” (Ro.4:5). To become a slave to righteousness is to live by faith.
John replies: The New Testament also says, “he that doeth righteousness is righteous. (1 John 3:4-10)
1 John 3:4 Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Everyone who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 Everyone who commits sin is a child of the devil; for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The Son of God was revealed for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9 Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God’s seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God. 10 The children of God and the children of the devil are revealed in this way: all who do not do what is right are not from God, nor are those who do not love their brothers and sisters. (NRSV)
Or, as James said: “Faith without works is dead.”
John said
quote:
In other words, sanctification and eternal life itself is by no means automatic upon a one-time repitition of a so-called "sinner's prayer," but is perpetually conditioned upon a life of radical discipleship to Jesus Christ.
Empiress said: I agree we must live a life of radical discipleship to Jesus Christ, but that does not mean we will become “sinless.” While we must demonstrate our faith through works as James describes, it is not our works that save us and it is not being “sinless” that saves us.
Eternal life is not conditional upon our sinlessness as Paul says so clearly, “If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and if you believe with your heart that God raised him from the dead, then you will be saved. It is by believing with the heart that you are justified, and by making the declaration with your lips that you are saved.…for all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Chapter 3:1-14 of Galatians bears repeating: <portion snipped>
John, what is your response to these verses?
John responds:
As Paul is in Galatians arguing against justification by works of the law, and it is clear that if one has ever sinned even once they never can be declared righteous (justified) according to the law. It does not matter if one has obeyed longer than one disobeyed; one sin committed makes it impossible for one to ever be declared righteous by the Law’s standard. That said, a person can only be justified by faith, but biblical faith is so much more than simply claiming one believes. As Jesus said, “Many shall say to me on that Day, ‘Lord, lord...’ Romans 4, which holds up Abraham as the example of what it means for God to justify the ungodly by faith, refers to a man (Abraham) who we would never have heard of had he not obeyed the call of God.
quote:
Matt 7 13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. Matt 7 14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Empiress said: It is odd to me that people assume Jesus is speaking about heaven and hell in these verses. The context these verses occur in has to do with very practical advice for here on earth with the Golden Rule occurring just before and warnings about false prophets right afterwards. These verses do not occur in the midst of a discussion of salvation. Rather, a better understanding of these verses is that Jesus is speaking about the dangers of THIS life. The “gates” are not the gates of hell and heaven but the many dangers of life on earth.
John replies: Much to the contrary, the passage begins the climax of the Sermon on the Mount by saying, “Many shall say to me in that Day (obviously the Final Judgment), ‘Lord, lord...’ and Jesus will say to them, “Depart from me, I never knew you!”
By the way, I have never denied the doctrine of justification by faith, just the antinomian approach to Christianity that you advocate. Faith without works is dead. A Christian must repent of all sin as often as necessary, and seek to live above sin by God's power. And yes, I realize that the point you're trying to make is that homosexual activity is not sin (and that is where we will most likely never agree).
I am saying nothing other than what Jesus said through the Apostle John, for example, in the following passage:
Rev. 2:1 “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands:
2“I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance. I know that you cannot tolerate evildoers; you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them to be false. 3I also know that you are enduring patiently and bearing up for the sake of my name, and that you have not grown weary. 4But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. 5 Remember then from what you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. 6Yet this is to your credit: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 7Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches. To everyone (and no one but these) who conquers, (overcomes sin) I will give permission to eat from the tree of life that is in the paradise of God. (NRSV with emphasis added; paretheticals mine)
Now many today would respond to this by saying, "Whaddya mean, Jesus?!?!? We're justified by faith alone! You're preaching works!
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 03/07/2003 11:47:59 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/7/2003 8:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Empiress
Anyone who does any work on the Sabbath day will be put to death (Ex. 31 15).
The Gospel of John explains very clearly that Jesus was working on the Sabbath and was breaking the Sabbath “It was because (Jesus) did things like this on the Sabbath that the Jews began to harass Jesus. His answer to them was, ‘My Father still goes on working, and I am at work too.’
John Earp
Jesus never broke the Sabbath; what he “broke” was the Pharisees’ interpretation of how the Sabbath should be observed.
Iconoclast
This sure seems a lot plainer and more obvious to me than what the Bible says about homosexuality. The law say that you cannot work on the Sabbath. Jesus blatantly admits that he is at work on the Sabbath. Yet you deny there is any issue here. You insist that the problem lies in the interpretation of the Pharisees – that they were interpreting the law too strictly – that they were forbidding things that the law didn’t actually forbid.
Seems to me that you are going to great lengths to interpret the Sabbath law very freely – to the point that we can do just about anything - yet you are interpreting what the Bible has to say about homosexuality very strictly as though it explicitly forbids gay monogamous marriage.
John Earp
There is no Scripture in the Torah which forbids feeding oneself on the Sabbath.
Iconoclast
The issue is working on the Sabbath not eating on the Sabbath. You were supposed to have your meals prepared ahead of time. The problem was not Jesus and the disciples eating on the Sabbath – it was that they picked the heads of grain (they worked to procure their food) when they clearly weren’t starving.
Likewise with the healing. Jesus healed on the Sabbath – to heal someone is work. Doctors make a living at it. Jesus healed people on the Sabbath who had chronic conditions – there was no emergency or necessity to healing them (working) on the Sabbath – he could have waited till the next day.
I just don’t get what your confusion is John. The text is plain, the law is plain, no WORK on the Sabbath. Jesus even admits that He is at work on the Sabbath. I just don’t know how much clearer something gets? And yet you deny this.
On the other hand I go to great lengths to show you that arsenokoites is an idiom that first appears in the Bible when Paul uses the word and that it only occurs twice in the Bible altogether. Moreover I show you how there are no other texts of the time period that we can use to figure out what this word means – that we only have texts about 120 years after Paul used this word and the meaning there is male child-rape. And what do I get from you in return for all this data showing very clearly how the term is untranslatable? What do I get from you after I prove that the meaning of the term is ANYTHING but obvious?
John Earp
Amazing how much energy someone will expend to deny the obvious.
Iconoclast
And then you deny that Jesus transgressed the Sabbath law. Yes, I realize that you didn't spend much energy doing so - that's not my point - I actually wish you would spend more. Do you also deny that Jesus transgressed the law when He refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery? Wasn’t it the law that a person caught in adultery should be stoned?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 3/7/2003 8:35 PM (GMT -6) | | PoW said:
The one caught up in sin is not quite so culpable as the false shepherd.
Semeia:
Isn't a false shepherd someone who leads people away from Jesus Christ? Who is it keeping gays out of the church, and out of a relationship with Jesus Christ? I can tell you exactly who that is. It is the religious folk who claim to be more righteous than their brother, even though they have careless words and angry thoughts and eat too much and are full of pride and mow their lawn on the Sabbath, and much, much worse. They see themselves as more holy than their brother, and every chance they get they point out their brother's sin.
My own sister has had a lifetime of this abuse. In spite of it, she has recently had her spiritual life reawakened. Not by any Christian church - after all, they are the ones who have rejected her - but by the twelve step program of Al Anon. She can't yet bear to talk about "the Christ thing" because it hurts too much to talk about something that has been the source of so much pain. She has had too many Christians tell her she was going to go to hell to want to talk about THAT.
So we can let the twelve step programs reach out to people in need, and accept them where they are at, so they can get help for the things that DO dominate their lives, so they can build a relationship with God, while we are busy in sackcloth and ashes, saying our prayers in the public square, touting our holiness and our sacrifice. But it means nothing - less than nothing - better to have done NOTHING - when we have neglected love.
And the other side of this argument is not about love. I am convinced of that. It's about scripture, and about what's "right." This "hate the sin, love the sinner" is a lie from the pit of hell, and I don't think anyone who says it can really believe it. Because when you love someone deeply, and you see who they really are, all you care about is what really hurts them and what really helps them. Everything else falls away. I believe people believe this lie because they are living under the curse of the fall, and they don't believe in their heart that God loves them as they are - God died for them just as they are - so they have to find a way to be holy to earn the love that God has given them for free. So they cling to this idea of their own righteousness (which takes so much energy to maintain) which then drives them to judge their brother, who they deem to be living in sin. And the whole cycle of judging themselves, denying their own sin to appear holy, and judging others, all comes about because of a mistaken belief that we are not filled up already with infinite love and worth in the eyes of God.
And the knowledge of good and evil that separates us from God permeates every aspect of our world and seduces us into judgment with the subtle question, “Did God say?” Did God really say… which is THE religious question. And why does this innocent question bring about the fall of man, today every bit as much as at the beginning of human life? Because the question takes us out of the concrete reality of being in relationship and being FILLED UP by God and throws us into a chasm of man’s doubt and reliance on his own ability to judge. When we ask, “Did God say… homosexuality is a sin?” we are no longer engaged in the concrete loving relationship with the person in front of us, we are no longer in “love” at all, but we have replaced love and put in its stead our own thought process as a substitute, and it is no longer possible to act solely out of love for God and neighbor.
Christianity is not about forcing others to do anything. Christianity is about dying to ourselves. Jesus didn’t transform the world by taking it by storm and enacting a new set of laws or even by enforcing the old. He fulfilled the law by showing us what love looks like – how sometimes love even looks like breaking the law. The law is useful only insofar as it helps to produce love. The minute it hinders love (by giving someone the ridiculous idea that it is better to wait a day to heal someone, for example) it ceases to impart any force.
The principle reality behind the relationship of the law to the question of homosexuality is that this is a clear cut case in which love is hindered in the extreme, and homosexuals have been driven away not only from the church but away from God, by people who purport to do God’s will. And this result speaks the truth of the Christian lack of love louder than any esoteric discussion of scripture ever can. We have only to look within the church itself to see our failure to love. And this shame will follow us, because God simply doesn’t care how good we are – if it is without love it is nothing.
The only battleground to win against sin is the territory of our own heart. No one can know another’s sin, because the serpent is subtle, and we can be like whitewashed tombs. And if we’re honest, we admit that we pick our sins to conquer. People who chirp about their years of chastity often couldn’t get laid to save their life. If we know anything two thousand years after Christ allowed himself to be nailed to the cross, it’s that all is not as it appears. The holy are not holy. The filthy are not filthy. The clean are not clean. Just when we think we have it figured out we find it’s another blind alley, and an “unlooked for result.” And amidst all the shit, the only thing that has meaning, that endures, is the love that we manage to find and give away and find and give away and find again. The bible itself is not love, and the failure to realize that is the source of some of the worst atrocities against humans in the history of the world, to which the crusades attest. Love can be found there, page after page, as an idea – but it doesn’t actually exist until it occurs between one’s self and the real God and the real sister and brother and neighbor and friend and enemy.
What the deepest, truest, most real experiences of love have in common is the intimacy and recognition of shared human frailty – the vulnerability of allowing one’s self to be seen for who we really are – which is all God asks of us – to come into the light and experience the truth. The deep love experienced with a spouse or a child or a friend does not come about because we are good or holy – it comes about because we are willing to be seen, because we trust that even where we fall short we will be accepted by the beloved. And the interesting thing about enduring love is that often we discover that the thing we thought we needed to change about ourselves is precious, and the thing we felt most proud about has kept us from being completely alive.
When gay people open up to Christians, and reveal their most vulnerable selves, more often than not they get told they are going to hell if they don’t change. And we call this sort of viciousness “speaking the truth in love.”
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/7/2003 9:07 PM (GMT -6) | | The following are respected evangelical commentator's views on this episode in Christ's ministry. (Not that they necessarily are discussion enders, but they do express what I have been trying to say, and thus show I am not the only one who has seen these apparent difficulties as I do. It was not work to feed oneself raw food (which God had already prepared naturally). And it was not anything other than what God had already been eternally doing for Jesus to heal on the Sabbath.
From Adam Clarke's Commentary on the NT:
John 5:17
My Father worked hitherto, and I work—Or, As my Father worketh until now, etc., êáèùò being understood. God created the world in six days: on the seventh he rested from all creating acts, and set it apart to be an everlasting memorial of his work. But, though he rested from creating, he never ceased from preserving and governing that which he had formed: in this respect he can keep no sabbaths; for nothing can continue to exist, or answer the end proposed by the Divine wisdom and goodness, without the continual energy of God. So I work—I am constantly employed in the same way, governing and supporting all things, comforting the wretched, and saving the lost; and to me, in this respect, there is no sabbath.
From Matthew Henry's Commentary:
VERSES 1-8
Being in the corn-fields, the disciples began to pluck the ears of corn: the law of God allowed it, Deuteronomy 23:25. This was slender provision for Christ and his disciples; but they were content with it. The Pharisees did not quarrel with them for taking another man’s corn, but for doing it on the sabbath day. Christ came to free his followers, not only from the corruptions of the Pharisees, but from their unscriptural rules, and justified what they did. The greatest shall not have their lusts indulged, but the meanest shall have their wants considered. Those labours are lawful on the sabbath day which are necessary, and sabbath rest is to froward, not to hinder sabbath worship. Needful provision for health and food is to be made; but when servants are kept at home, and families become a scene of hurry and confusion on the Lord’s day, to furnish a feast for visitors, or for indulgence, the case is very different. Such things as these, and many others common among professors, are to be blamed. The resting on the sabbath was ordained for man’s good, Deuteronomy 5:14. No law must be understood so as to contradict its own end. And as Christ is the Lord of the sabbath, it is fit the day and the work of it should be dedicated to him.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 03/08/2003 02:11:40 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/8/2003 4:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Empiress said: A few thoughts…
First, I can certainly appreciate the concern of the tract writer when Christians flagrantly sin and hurt others and still claim to be Christians. However, there needs to be a sane middle ground in which we acknowledge that Christians will sometimes fail in their desire to live free from sin. A spouse may deliberately say a cruel word to their spouse in anger...it doesn't mean they're not Christians. More on this below.
John responds: And the ad hominems begin! For the record, I won’t say or imply that you’re insane, Empiress. :)
John, I did not mean to imply that I think you are insane and I’m sorry. Please note that the use of the word “sane” is in reference to the concept being espoused by the tract writer and is not aimed at your own personal sanity. I should have used a better word though. :)
John said: quote:
As to your second-to-last sentence, that is a non sequitur; no one is saying, “One sin and you’re automatically not a Christian anymore.” If you’re going to argue against a position, basic integrity and honesty would require that you at least get their position down correctly.
You are saying that I lack honesty and integrity...okay, that is a personal affront. I certainly tried to understand the concepts being espoused in the tract by reading through it twice, if you feel I misunderstood (which is an honest mistake) please explain to me where you think I have it wrong. My failure to comprehend is not out of laziness or dishonesty or a lack of integrity, etc., it is simply a reflection of my own misunderstanding.
I would like to post this to another thread since it really deserves a new thread of it’s own. The topic is quite significant and I don’t want to derail the homosexuality discussion taking place.
Thanks,
~E
Edited by - Empiress on 03/08/2003 09:04:48 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/8/2003 4:09 AM (GMT -6) | | POW said: quote:
But what troubles me the most is that to make such allowances for continued sin (of ANY sort) and then apply it broadly (as cheep grace) is simply not true, and is quite dangerous.
First, I don't know why you and others still think what is merely being argued for is "allowances for sin." Do you really think we're saying, "yes, homosexuality is a terrible sin, but please make allowances for it anyway"? Don't you hear us saying more than that?
BTW, what kind of allowances do you think are dangerous? Is it dangerous to allow remarried couples who sin continually in adultery back into the church?
Thanks
~E
Edited by - Empiress on 03/08/2003 10:02:48 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/8/2003 5:08 AM (GMT -6) | | E said: If being a homosexual is not a sin then BEING a homosexual is not a sin. If one's sexual orientation is not chosen, then how can we call it a sin if one simply lives out that orientation?
PoW: I can't believe that you are a minister and are saying that! You are saying that to "live out" one's condition (which, whatever it is with respect to habits of sexual attraction, all fits within the rubric of fallen-ness) is naturally good. Your onion has its skins in-side-out. While the NATURE that God gave us does not become evil (NIV to the contrary) we are truely fallen. "Living out" the "fallen" orientation (in whatever way) does not help us.
See this LINK (www.antiochian.org/theology/our_old_self_crucified_with_Christ.htm) on Romans 6:6 -- "knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Christ, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we might no longer be slaves to sin."
But if your reflex (as some here might) to errect sexual actions as the sole example of sinful problems. As many here have been saying (Pay attention Semeia!) ALL of our sins are a problem, for ALL of us. None excepted.
Simply "living out that orientation" is not the solution (for any sin), it is a continuation of the problem.
Paul got to the heart of the matter in Romans 6:6. (Again, go see the WHOLE examination of that passage LINK-ed; not just the question at the beginning.)
You said, Empiress: Being a heterosexual is not a sin, and we don't call falling in love a "temptation" for heterosexuals.
It might be. If lust is involved it can.
But what is missing from your examination is the unique-ness of what marriage is. Marriage is a uniting of the TWO expressions of our human Image-bearing-ness.
Instead, those wishing here to justify homosexual unions exchange something God created for a humanistic abstraction. (honorman took that to task.) Marriage is a form of monasticism. But homosexual union will NEVER be a form of monasticism.
You all only succeed in replacing TRUE monasticism with a humanistic substitute.
Celebacy is a sacrifice (can be, if gathered and offered) to the Lord.
Empiress mentions: ...living according to an orientation they never made a conscious decision about.[/.]
PoW: But YOU don't prescribed "making a conscious decision." You are recommending that those in your ministerial charge (be alert) follow their fallen nature. "Making a conscious decision" involves AN ACT OF THE WILL (along with the Spirit's strengthening) instead of giving in to the semi-DETERMINISTIC obstical of sexual orientation.
Any "straight" (who that is fallen is "straight?") person also struggles with their passions. And it is these passions that need the Spirit's help. They do not need humanistic pemissions. The fall "marred" the Image in us -- so who can say that they are "straight."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/8/2003 5:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
What is more difficult for me to understand however, is his point that true Christians will never fall into sin and that justification and sanctification occur instantaneously such that if one is not completely sanctified the moment they are justified, then they are not really justified. This opens up the entire debate of justification by faith! If John is correct then any Christian who sins deliberately after being justified is not truly justified. I think that means a whole host of us, that is, any of us who admit to having ever sinned "deliberately" since we first put faith in Jesus, are not "true Christians." But it obviously ruffles less feathers to debunk the doctrine of justification by faith on this forum than to say that homosexual monogamy is not a sin. How very odd.
~E
Forget the Calvinist/Arminian controversies, and Pelagius for a moment.
Unless you will argue for continuing in sin, go see this LINK:
(http://www.antiochian.org/theology/our_old_self_crucified_with_Christ.htm)
(Maybe you are opperating with a juridical view of justification. Does your wordprocessor have margin-justification? Hint.)
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 03/08/2003 10:35:53 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/8/2003 5:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Icon wrote: ...wasn't the problem with the Pharisees that they laid a whole bunch of burdens on the people by accusing them of all sorts of sins without doing anything to help them?
PoW: Laying on a burden without helping was horrible.
But those that merely called for revelution also missed the point.
The only TRUE point was the point of the nails (speaking poetically, of course).
No one would assert that the Pharacees should have merely burned the books of the Law!
Icon wrote: Isn't accusing practicing homosexuals of being sinners who won't go to heaven (even if they accept Jesus into their hearts) exactly the sort of thing the Pharisees did?
PoW: Regardless of whether it is "exactly the sort of thing the Pharisees did" or not, it deserves its OWN examination.
No one should "accuse practicing homosexuals of being sinners who won't go to heaven (even if they accept Jesus into their hearts)."
The PROBLEM is in any of us, by ourselves, declaring who will and will not go to heaven.
But YOUR phrasing has its own problems. "Accepting Jesus into our heart" involves repentence. Repentence is not merely the sum of all sins, it is a redirection of the heart. And our fallenness is not a mere nominalistic summary of all the sins we do or have done. Our fallenness is that dis-orientation away from God and unto ourselves. When we accept Jesus into our heart" it is our "flesh-oriented self" that is dethroned. Sins get nailed to the cross, and we no longer are slaves to their law. But we MUST also not allow ourselves to be slaves to sin.
(See this LINK: http://www.antiochian.org/theology/our_old_self_crucified_with_Christ.htm )
- Hope the weather is nice in Minnesota! -
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 03/08/2003 10:33:12 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/8/2003 5:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia wrote: "more often than not they get told they are going to hell if they don’t change. And we call this sort of viciousness “speaking the truth in love.”"
PoW: That could be said of any sin. But that does not mean that Grace is cheep! (alla Bonhoeffer)
The presence of pharasees around us (or in ourselves) does not change thre reality of Creation/Fall/Redemption. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/8/2003 5:36 AM (GMT -6) | | POW, I’d love if when we dialogued, you answered the questions I asked because it would help me out to know where you’re really coming from. In general you ignore my questions or refuse to answer them and it creates greater confusion for me. I’m not sure what the point is of dialogue if everytime I ask something you ignore it.
quote:
E said: If being a homosexual is not a sin then BEING a homosexual is not a sin. If one's sexual orientation is not chosen, then how can we call it a sin if one simply lives out that orientation?
PoW: I can't believe that you are a minister and are saying that! You are saying that to "live out" one's condition (which, whatever it is with respect to habits of sexual attraction, all fits within the rubric of fallen-ness) is naturally good. Your onion has its skins in-side-out. While the NATURE that God gave us does not become evil (NIV to the contrary) we are truely fallen. "Living out" the "fallen" orientation (in whatever way) does not help us.
Umm…okay, again I think you are misunderstanding me, I am NOT saying that. I am drawing the line of comparison between one’s sexual orientation to one’s basic biological and psychological make-up which is morally –neutral.- I am not drawing a line between one’s sexual orientation and our “fallen state.”
One of the reasons I cannot stand Gnosticism is because it takes everything physical about human beings, in PARTICULAR our sexuality, and turns it into something less than “good” and even evil. I believe that our sexuality is naturally “good” and that our sexuality is God-given and blessed by God. While yes, sexuality can become distorted, I am arguing that our most natural sexual orientation is “good” whether that orientation is heterosexual or homosexual. It becomes distorted when it involves lust, promiscuity, obsession, or when it hurts others in some way. No, not every "inclination" a person has is good, I would never say that, especially not when the inclination is to hurt someone (eg rape, molestation, promiscuity, etc.).
Pow said: quote:
But what is missing from your examination is the unique-ness of what marriage is. Marriage is a uniting of the TWO expressions of our human Image-bearing-ness. ….
Marriage is a form of monasticism. But homosexual union will NEVER be a form of monasticism.
Why not? Marriage is a union that is founded in love and reflects the love Christ has for the Church. It is a covenant between two people that reflects the covenant God has with us. If “maleness” and “femaleness” is an inherent requirement for sacramental marriage, what are we to tell people BORN with both sets of genitals or who have gender confusion? Are hermaphrodites unable to experience the sacrament of marriage because they are not proper “Image bearers”?
quote:
Empiress mentions: ...living according to an orientation they never made a conscious decision about.[/.]
PoW: But YOU don't prescribed "making a conscious decision." You are recommending that those in your ministerial charge (be alert) follow their fallen nature. "Making a conscious decision" involves AN ACT OF THE WILL (along with the Spirit's strengthening) instead of giving in to the semi-DETERMINISTIC obstical of sexual orientation.
I am NOT telling people to “follow their fallen nature” and I find that statement unfounded on many levels. I have already said that I believe sexuality falls along a continuum and some –cannot- change their orientation because their orientation is –natural- to them…it is who they are. I encourage people to seek God and be who God is calling them to be. For the record, I never tell anyone what they SHOULD do based on my opinions, I tell them to seek God and I offer to walk with them prayerfully to help THEM discover what GOD is calling them to. The prayer, “God’s will be done” is the only one I offer for people.
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/8/2003 5:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Empiress: BTW, what kind of allowances do you think are dangerous? Is it dangerous to allow remarried couples who sin continually in adultery back into the church?
PoW: Is that supposed to be a cute-ish reference to the ongoing marriage of those who have been divorced. I have a friend who is a sub-deacon and who will never be a deacon -- he is remarried from a very, very young marriage. If that is what you mean (otherwise ignore this!) "shame" on you for writing: "remarried couples who sin continually in adultery."
But if you literally mean to refer to married people who have affairs outside of their marriage, then I TOO will call that "sin continually in adultery."
But if you are condemning those who remarried - take that bitterness elsewhere!!!!!!!
This question of yours again shows distraction (or ignorance?) from what God has established in marriage. Do you have instead a substitute? (Seems so.)
Empiress writes: "Fist, I don't know why you and others still think what is being argued for is "allowances for sin." Do you really think we're saying, "yes, homosexuality is a terrible sin, but please make allowances for it anyway"?"
PoW: Do I think that you are "saying, "yes, homosexuality is a terrible sin, but please make allowances for it anyway"?" Yes. But I'm not saying that you are aware of it. You are making allowances for something AND THEN no longer calling it sin. But in a larger sense, you are also redefining sin. You are nominalizing it. You are nominalizing sin. That supposedly done, you redefine it. And in the end you have a humanistic "virtue" that you deify -- you call "godly."
Its the liberal gospel. Nothing new.
Bonhoeffer blew the trumpet call against it.
Repeating what I wrote above:
quote:
POW said: But what troubles me the most is that to make such allowances for continued sin (of ANY sort) and then apply it broadly (as cheep grace) is simply not true, and is quite dangerous.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 59 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:06 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|