Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

59 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/2/2003 11:22 AM (GMT -6)

http://www.dennisjernigan.com/

Dennis Jernigan's ministry of music is truly unique among praise and worship leaders today. The website above contains his wonderful testimony of God's delivering power.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 3/2/2003 11:48 AM (GMT -6)

That can't be possible, it is a genetic disorder!

He probably is really still as homosexual as the day he was bo...er, when he found out he was gay at the age of five. It is probably the case that he is just supressing it, but when prompted to answer what gender his sexual fantasies contain, he would say men.

Blessings,
Paul

"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 3/3/2003 6:07 AM (GMT -6)

It is always a blessing to hear how God works in people's lives to bring about wholeness and Dennis' testimony is no exception.

From Dennis' testimony:
"because I felt rejected by the main man in my life I, in turn, rejected him and began to yearn for intimacy with a man"

"Being a young man in need of male affirmation and attention, I was overwhelmed when a man I respected greatly began paying attention to me."

"My concept of god was that of a cosmic policeman - a distant God just waiting for me to mess up so He could step back into my life and bop me on the head! I felt ashamed and unworthy of His love. I felt that God was unapproachable. Still, I could not give up.

"You see, we are all helpless and in need of a Father to care for us. And He is the Father Who will never leave us or forsake us. He is the Father Who enjoys our presence more than we could ever enjoy His!"

When I read this beautiful article, it was clear to me that what God healed Dennis of was the pain and hurt from his relationship with his distant father that lead him to "desire intimacy with a man" and the misperception Dennis had of God as a Father who was distant and uncaring, but it was not healing of Dennis' true sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is much deeper than the need for intimacy with a person of the same sex because they lacked that growing up.

quote:
"....Conversion therapies are based on the belief that the "cause(s)" of homosexuality are found in the environment -- specifically from the parenting incompetence of the father while the boy is young. We have found six types of studies into the nature of homosexuality that appear to indicate that this is not true:

The first type appears to show that inadequate or non-existent fathering is
not a factor in sexual orientation:

Society itself is an excellent testing laboratory for many social theories. There is a near consensus among mental health and human sexuality professionals that the incidence of homosexual orientation is fairly constant across societies and eras. However, if Ms.
Moberly's theory on incompetent fathering is correct, then one would expect
to observe two factors:

A drastic increase in homosexual orientation among
children born shortly before World War II. British, Canadian and other forces
were engaged in combat from 1939 to 1945; Americans were involved from 1941
to 1945. Many boys were deprived of their fathers during their formative years.
The ultimate "distant" father is one who is fighting a war on another continent.
We have been unable to find evidence of any such massive surge in the incidence
of homosexual orientation among men who are now in their early 60's.

A much larger percentage of Afro-American children than white children
are brought up in a single-parent family in which a resident father is absent.
If Moberly's theory were correct, then one would expect a much higher incidence
of homosexuality among Afro-American adult males than among the general
population. Again, there appears to be no evidence that this is true.

Five other studies appear to indicate that sexual orientation (at least for males) is largely genetically determined:

Pedigree studies of the sexual orientation of the ancestors of gay males indicates that homosexual orientation is largely genetically determined and is passed by the mother via one or more genes on a specific chromosome.

Studies of identical twins who were separated at birth and raised in isolation from each other also show that homosexual orientation is primarily genetically determined.

Studies of twins who are born into and raised in the same family support the data from the previous study.

Studies of fingertip ridges shows a difference between homosexual and heterosexual males. (Fingerprints are fully formed by the 17th week of pregnancy).

Studies of index and ring fingers show that homosexuals and heterosexuals generally differ in the ratio of the length of their fingers. The relative size of a person's fingers is also determined before birth."

From: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod.htm#inv

I wrote on the previous "question" thread:

"A note about sexuality and conversion therapy:

Much argument has been made about the supposed “success” or “failure” of conversion therapy for homosexuals. Here is a more full response:

First, doctors and scientists tell us that sexual orientation occurs on a spectrum. That means there are people who are firmly heterosexual and firmly homosexual and people on varying points along the spectrum including bisexuals. However, many people who claim a predominance of homosexual or heterosexual orientation are actually fall somewhere between the two extremes. A person with a mild tendency towards homosexuality might very well consider themselves “homosexual” and they may go through conversion therapy and “convert” because they were never that deeply predisposed towards homosexuality. For those who fall closer to the middle of the spectrum and simply desire to be more fully accepted by society and the Church, I actually believe that conversion therapy can be a good thing for them. However, for those who fall closer to the edge of the spectrum, those for whom homosexual orientation is much more deeply apart of the physical and psychological make up, conversion therapy will fail miserably and be nothing but destructive and even abusive for them.

This is why all of us can speak of accounts in which people we knew had varying experiences with conversion therapy. We are all unique individuals and it would be an error to suppose that just because some people can change their sexual orientation does not mean that everyone can…regardless of how vigorous the therapy is. And it doesn’t come down to merely “giving their burdens to God” either. Surely those of you who are deeply predisposed to heterosexuality can understand this: no amount of conversion therapy is going to make you become homosexual suddenly…it is too much apart of who you are.

quote:

"After more than 40 years of research on gender identity and sexual orientation,
John Money, director of the Psychohormonal Research Unit of the John Hopkins
School of Medicine, has observed that "it is no more possible to change a
homosexual orientation into a heterosexual one than it is to change a
heterosexual orientation into a homosexual one." He reports that claims of
change in orientations when carefully examined turn out to be those of
"persons who are bisexual to some degree, but are not 100% homosexual,
nor 100% heterosexual."

John Earp, I'd be interested to hear your response to this.

-----------

For the studious, here are some links that provide a formidable challeng to the ex-gay claims:

http://content.gay.com/channels/news/heads/010129_courage_exodus.html

http://www.truluck.com/html/sexual_orientation_and_the__ex.html

http://www.whosoever.org/issue4/index.html

Peace,
~E

Edited by - Empiress on 03/03/2003 11:19:21 AM

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 3/3/2003 6:20 AM (GMT -6)

Miss E: regardless of "opinions" and quotes from "experts," the simple fact (I know its hard to believe) is that there are people out there who do at one time believe they were homosexual, came out of the closet so to speak and later renounced that view, regardless of whether or not they struggle with it still, or that people may not consider them truly heterosexual. That is reality and it is a reality that the homosexual community does not want to honestly deal with because it crushes their view that one is born homosexual.
I know people who change for religious reasons and those who change simply because they lifestyle advocated is, in their view, unhealthy. Regardless, I would rely more on scripture than the "experts" you seem so fond of quoting.
Finally, I would suggest that before you "judge" what God healed Dennis of you read his full biography...
Is sin on a spectrum? If serial murderers were found to have a "gene" that predisposed them to commit murder would that justify what they do? Homosexuals may indeed have a "gene" of some kind in them, but there is some proof that alcoholics to do, but we don't condon what they do. Neither should we condon homosexuality. Sin is sin, no matter how "big" we view our god to be...

Edited by - honorman on 03/03/2003 11:21:47 AM

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 3/3/2003 7:38 AM (GMT -6)

Honorman said:

quote:
Miss E: regardless of "opinions" and quotes from "experts," the simple fact (I know its hard to believe) is that there are people out there who do at one time believe they were homosexual, came out of the closet so to speak and later renounced that view, regardless of whether or not they struggle with it still, or that people may not consider them truly heterosexual. That is reality and it is a reality that the homosexual community does not want to honestly deal with because it crushes their view that one is born homosexual.

My response:

Honorman: regardless of "opinions," the simple fact (I know it is hard to believe) is that there are people out there who believed they were homosexual, came out of the closet so to speak, went through 25-40 YEARS of "reparative therapy" and still could not be "cured" of their homosexuality. That is a reality and it is a reality that the anti-homosexual community does not want to honestly deal with because it crushes their view of homosexuality.

Honorman said:

quote:
Regardless, I would rely more on scripture than the "experts" you seem so fond of quoting.

Thanks. The same advice was given to those who argued that the earth was round, not flat like the Bible said it was. Why are those "experts" always screwing with our neat and tidy Biblical interpretations?

I find it downright scary when people willfully ignore scientific knowledge and discovery to retain their interpretation of the Bible.

Honorman said:

quote:
Is sin on a spectrum?

No, sin isn't, sexual orientation is.

honorman said: [quote]If serial murderers were found to have a "gene" that predisposed them to commit murder would that justify what they do? [quote]

No it would not "justify" murder because murder destroys people. One's sexual orientation, like the color of their skin, does not destroy people. The two are not even comparable.

~E

Edited by - Empiress on 03/03/2003 1:18:35 PM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/3/2003 1:50 PM (GMT -6)

Empiress,

As I have no personal experience with homosexual tendencies, I can only compare it to my own heterosexual drive to understand what it might be like. Much to my own shame, and though I definitely knew better, when I was away from God I engaged in premarital sex (not with my wife) as well as became addicted to pornography. Though I have made a choice, am very happily married, very much satisfied sexually with my wife, those sinful former memories and images still at times enter my mind. To be certain, this area of temptation has become less and less powerful the longer I have chosen to abstain from these sins and have directed my sex drive in the direction that pleases God--towards my wife.

Certainly, I could do the unthinkable and return to my former sinful way of life, and perhaps then you would be happy, as it would "prove" your theory correct.

I have no doubt that though I have remained by the grace of God sexually pure for years now, by your assessment I'm still a pornographer and fornicator, and will always be, no matter how long I may try to fool myself into thinking I am really healed of my past sinful habits. You would say the same thing that Alcoholics Anonymous tried to tell me back when I was a drunkard, that I would "always be an alcoholic," but no matter what the Devil himself may say, I will shout the glory of God for delivering me from the powers of darkness!

"Such were some of you," said Paul, "but you were washed...sanctified...justified."

Were I to backslide, the following would be true of me:

2 Pet. 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment that was passed on to them. 22It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “The dog turns back to its own vomit,” and, “The sow is washed only to wallow in the mud.”

2 Pet. 1:3 His divine power has given us everything needed for life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust, and may become participants of the divine nature. 5For this very reason, you must make every effort to support your faith with goodness, and goodness with knowledge, 6and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with endurance, and endurance with godliness, 7and godliness with mutual affection, and mutual affection with love. 8For if these things are yours and are increasing among you, they keep you from being ineffective and unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9For anyone who lacks these things is nearsighted and blind, and is forgetful of the cleansing of past sins. 10Therefore, brothers and sisters, be all the more eager to confirm your call and election, for if you do this, you will never stumble. 11For in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you.

As to your "scientific evidence," it is quite clear what your Bible is--humanistic science. It is amazing to me how someone can expend so much effort to deny what the Bible plainly says. It's a surprise that using humanistic methods of "therapy" these doctors have been unable to heal perverted sexual drives? I wouldn't expect physicians and psychologist to claim the ability to work miracles, but the God of the Bible certainly can (unless you now are saying that God can't do miracles).

As to "sexual orientation" the term is a misnomer. A man's penis was never intended to be placed in another man's rectum. No doubt by your way of reasoning bestiality and pederasty is fine too, if one is "oriented" towards it.

Sodomy doesn't harm people? The anus was not created for penile penetration, and is very easily damaged by this, leading to a very unhealthy situation. It is also a matter of scientific fact, not theory, that a combination of blood, semen, and feces is virtually a perfect culture for HIV to grow in. No one is more unloving towards gays than gays. It is loving to spread horrible, deadly disease in order to fulfill one's selfish desires?

No one who knew what he was talking about ever said living a holy life would be easy.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 03/03/2003 6:54:52 PM

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 3/3/2003 1:58 PM (GMT -6)

Dennis Jerigan!? That guy is soooo cool.

Actually he came to my school on many different occasions to sing www.cfni.org. Nice voice. Brings ya into the presence of Gaaaad! Halle-julia!! One time the worship leader told him at the last minute (forget what for) that he had to cancel him...he said..."Let's go with the flow. I don't want to stand in the way of the Spirit." That was nice because he certainly didn't elevate himself or his ministry.

Anyhow...I just want to make a couple of quick comments about some of what was said here.

Clearly, of all the subjects on homosexuality, THE CENTER, the apex, the vertex, the fastigium, that point which is equidistant from the periphery,

of the homosexual debate is this question of whether gay people can change or not. It seems to me to be what motivates those on the "affirming" side of this discussion. That is, the argument goes something along the lines that gay people had attempted to change, they tried to change, they couldn't change, they were unable to change so they debunked the idea of change. At some point they believed that homosexuality was wrong. And at some point, for some reason, they decided it was right. Was it through a study of scripture and prayerful study of the truth that they came to believe that homosexuality was as legit as heterosexuality?

Based on their own stories the theme is one of where gay people tried to change, they were unable, therefore, "acceptance."

To me, the whole question is off. For the question is not, "Can I change or not", but rather, "How can I obey?"

This is where I slightly depart company from those on the "non-affirming" side. It is wrong for religious gays to broad sweep and insist that because they can't change, NO ONE CAN. If we are going to be fair (as those on the "affirming side" want those on the non-affirming side to be), let's not speak for everyone. Why? Because we cannot get into peoples hearts.

Equally, those on the non-affirming side who HAVE shifted from homosexuality to hetrosexuality should never say that because they so completely changed everyone else who "really tries" will get the same results. We need to respect the individuality of each person's experience; every case is unique. Some change completely, some significantly, some in behavior more than in inner attractions. It is wrong for anyone to assume that everyone's experience will be just like theirs.

Lastly, this is why I think it is a waste of time to discuss experience. Whether a "gay Christian" is truly Christian or "born again" or not. It's too intangible. We can argue that if someone continues in sin, he risks hardening his heart toward God or reaping corruption. But we cannot see inside a person's soul to determine how hardened, backslidden or decieved he/she may be. It is more useful to center the homosexual debate on the Bible instead of the "spiritual state of the person." No matter how proud, confident or loved by God a person is, he can walk in darkness without knowing it, which is exactly why we need an objective standard against which we judge our actions.

Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 3/3/2003 3:15 PM (GMT -6)

John said:

quote:
Certainly, I could do the unthinkable and return to my former sinful way of life, and perhaps then you would be happy, as it would "prove" your theory correct.

You are actually saying that you believe I would be “happy” if you returned to your sinful life so that it would prove my “theory” correct? What kind of devil would prefer a fellow brother or sister in Christ to fall into sin so that their theory could be validated? A very sick and vile devil. That’s an astounding thing to say. If your opinion of me is that low, obviously we have basis upon which to have a respectful discussion.

Then John said:

quote:
I have no doubt that though I have remained by the grace of God sexually pure for years now, by your assessment I'm still a pornographer and fornicator

You have no doubt that I think you’re “still a pornographer and fornicator?” You either have no concept of what I am saying or you are intent on offending me in the deepest way possible.

The topic is homosexuality. I have stated that sexual orientation occurs along a spectrum and for SOME, it is not a chosen state that be can changed anymore than the color of their skin. Pornography and fornication are CHOSEN acts that people have no genetic predisposition toward. We ALL have the ability to overcome and defeat sin, but we do not have the ability to change our deepest genetic and psychological make up.

John said:

quote:
As to your "scientific evidence," it is quite clear what your Bible is--humanistic science.

The fact that I believe the Bible must be applied in context with what God grants us to discover about humanity and his world means that my “Bible” is humanistic science? I believe that the Lord reveals to us important things about the world and desires that we seek deeper a understanding of him and his creation continually. The original scientists were people of faith. The fact that my faith is not divorced from what God reveals to us about the world does not mean that my “bible” is humanistic science.

John said:

quote:
I wouldn't expect physicians and psychologist to claim the ability to work miracles, but the God of the Bible certainly can (unless you now are saying that God can't do miracles).

I believe in miracles. And yet I also know that for every person dying of a terminal illness who is prayed for, only some will be miraculously cured. Why does God not simply cure everyone who is prayed for? I don’t know. It is a mystery of God and God’s will that is beyond my comprehension. What I do know is that just because someone asks God to do something doesn’t mean God will do it. Apparently many homosexuals have had that same experience and have not been changed despite their fervent prayers.

John said:

quote:
No doubt by your way of reasoning bestiality and pederasty is fine too, if one is "oriented" towards it.

If you’ve read anything that I wrote you would see that I stated very clearly that the very first test in determining whether something is “unloving” is to ask whether someone is hurt by it. In the case of both of your examples, it is extremely destructive to force sex upon a child or animal who have no ability to consent. And disease contraction is very prominent among animals. Those facts alone tell us they are wrong.

However….the Bible condones child marriage and little girls were often married to older men who had intercourse with them. Reason and a knowledge of child psychology tells us that adults having sex with little girls is destructive, but NOT the Bible. If we must divorce our reason and knowledge from what we read in the Bible, we would conclude that sex with children is perfectly fine ‘cause the Bible says so. And it goes without saying that the rape of women in wartime and slavery is moral too…’cause the Bible allows for that too.

John said:

quote:
Sodomy doesn't harm people? The anus was not created for penile penetration, and is very easily damaged by this, leading to a very unhealthy situation. It is also a matter of scientific fact, not theory, that a combination of blood, semen, and feces is virtually a perfect culture for HIV to grow in. No one is more unloving towards gays than gays. It is loving to spread horrible, deadly disease in order to fulfill one's selfish desires?

1. HIV is a problem of promiscuity not monogamy.

2. No one seems to be outraged by the fact that heterosexual couples engage in anal sex. If it is so “damaging” that it puts one’s soul in peril, perhaps Christians ought to organize some kind of protest or rally and alert these couples to the danger they’re in.

3. If we’re going define what is most “destructive” about homosexuality as the physical dangers of having sex, then we would have to admit that lesbians are far and away the safest group. While heterosexuals have high rates of STD’s and HIV, lesbians have nearly no incidence of disease.

And you didn’t actually address the question I asked. I was hoping for a respectful and reasoned dialogue. How totally disappointing.

--------

Is anyone else actually interested in interacting with me about the possibility of sexual orientation falling along a spectrum and why that might account for the different experiences of those who enter into sexual "reparative" therapies? I am genuinely interested in talking about this idea if anyone has any thoughts.

~E

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/3/2003 3:43 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

John said:
quote:
Certainly, I could do the unthinkable and return to my former sinful way of life, and perhaps then you would be happy, as it would "prove" your theory correct.

You are actually saying that you believe I would be “happy” if you returned to your sinful life so that it would prove my “theory” correct? What kind of devil would prefer a fellow brother or sister in Christ to fall into sin so that their theory could be validated? A very sick and vile devil. That’s an astounding thing to say. If your opinion of me is that low, obviously we have basis upon which to have a respectful discussion.

I am merely taking your basic argument (Sinners can never change, no matter what they claim) and your question about what I think about this, and responding. By the way, sodomy is an unnatural sin for anyone to participate in. Do you believe Christians can live free from sin?

Empiress said ,

quote:
The topic is homosexuality. I have stated that sexual orientation occurs along a spectrum and for SOME, it is not a chosen state that be can changed anymore than the color of their skin. Pornography and fornication are CHOSEN acts that people have no genetic predisposition toward. We ALL have the ability to overcome and defeat sin, but we do not have the ability to change our deepest genetic and psychological make up.

If it is genetic in origin, how does it get passed down?

John said:

quote:
As to your "scientific evidence," it is quite clear what your Bible is--humanistic science.

Empiress said:

quote:
The fact that I believe the Bible must be applied in context with what God grants us to discover about humanity and his world means that my “Bible” is humanistic science?

John replies: No, the fact that you: (A) Quote humanistic scientists' assessments in support of homosexuality being unchangeable; and (B) Deny the plain statements of the Bible which flatly condemn men having sex with men, causes me to conclude that you prefer humanistic science as authoritative over Scripture.

John said:

quote:
I wouldn't expect physicians and psychologist to claim the ability to work miracles, but the God of the Bible certainly can (unless you now are saying that God can't do miracles).

Empiress said:

quote:
I believe in miracles. And yet I also know that for every person dying of a terminal illness who is prayed for, only some will be miraculously cured. Why does God not simply cure everyone who is prayed for? I don’t know. It is a mystery of God and God’s will that is beyond my comprehension. What I do know is that just because someone asks God to do something doesn’t mean God will do it. Apparently many homosexuals have had that same experience and have not been changed despite their fervent prayers.

John replies:

quote:
And there will be less and less who even try to be healed by the power of God if you have your way--because your argument presents the perfect excuse to them to continue in sin, and for those who are being tempted to go ahead and take the plunge on the basis of the theory you advocate.

John said:

quote:
No doubt by your way of reasoning bestiality and pederasty is fine too, if one is "oriented" towards it.

Empiress said:

quote:
If you’ve read anything that I wrote you would see that I stated very clearly that the very first test in determining whether something is “unloving” is to ask whether someone is hurt by it. In the case of both of your examples, it is extremely destructive to force sex upon a child or animal who have no ability to consent. And disease contraction is very prominent among animals. Those facts alone tell us they are wrong.

However….the Bible condones child marriage and little girls were often married to older men who had intercourse with them. Reason and a knowledge of child psychology tells us that adults having sex with little girls is destructive, but NOT the Bible. If we must divorce our reason and knowledge from what we read in the Bible, we would conclude that sex with children is perfectly fine ‘cause the Bible says so. And it goes without saying that the rape of women in wartime and slavery is moral too…’cause the Bible allows for that too.

John replies:

quote:
Little girls? Where do you come up with this? Yet another example of the ol' bait and switch. In any case, the New Testament does not condone rape of women ever, and slavery is mentioned, but merely as a reality in Roman society, not as God's best for mankind. Philemon seems to imply strongly that a truly transformed Christian slave owner would not continue to hold his brothers and sisters in bondage.

John said:

quote:
Sodomy doesn't harm people? The anus was not created for penile penetration, and is very easily damaged by this, leading to a very unhealthy situation. It is also a matter of scientific fact, not theory, that a combination of blood, semen, and feces is virtually a perfect culture for HIV to grow in. No one is more unloving towards gays than gays. It is loving to spread horrible, deadly disease in order to fulfill one's selfish desires?

Empiress said:

quote:

1. HIV is a problem of promiscuity not monogamy.

2. No one seems to be outraged by the fact that heterosexual couples engage in anal sex. If it is so “damaging” that it puts one’s soul in peril, perhaps Christians ought to organize some kind of protest or rally and alert these couples to the danger they’re in.

3. If we’re going define what is most “destructive” about homosexuality as the physical dangers of having sex, then we would have to admit that lesbians are far and away the safest group. While heterosexuals have high rates of STD’s and HIV, lesbians have nearly no incidence of disease.

John replies: That wouldn't change the fact that Paul says God has given women who have sexual relations with women over to a depraved mind.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 03/03/2003 8:54:45 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 3/3/2003 5:28 PM (GMT -6)

John Earp (from questions thread)

I agree that we ought never to condemn others. However, if one is loving God supremely and his neighbor as himself (living in unselfish goodwill toward all), he is by definition not sinning.

Iconoclast

I totally agree with this John. I think you are right on here. What confuses me is why you don't seem to acknowledge that Empiress is saying the same thing.

John Earp (from this thread)

By the way, sodomy is an unnatural sin for anyone to participate in. Do you believe Christians can live free from sin?

Iconoclast

I assume by "sodomy" that you mean anal sex. Have you ever thought about how strange it is that our culture has come to use the word "sodomy" to mean anal sex? 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 – why is there so much confusion about this simple and obvious fact?

What is very confusing to me is that you seem to argue two contradictory things:

1. To love God and neighbor as self means BY DEFINITION that you are not sinning.
2. Christians can live free from sin in the sense that they never actually transgress laws.

You seem to be saying that IF a Christian is sinning by transgressing a law THEN they are not really a Christian. IF a man is having anal sex with his wife THEN he is not a Christian BY DEFINITION.

But you can’t have them both be BY DEFINITION. Either one is the definition or the other is. Which is it?

quote:

John Earp

As Paul said, "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? May it never be!" And yes, that includes each and every biblically defined sin.

Iconoclast

Does that include such things as picking heads of grain on the Sabbath? Saying "thou fool" to your brother? A careless thought?

John Earp

Picking heads of grain on the Sabbath: As Jesus showed, if the ox is in the ditch, one may do what is necessary on the Sabbath, including picking heads of grain if need be.

I think that THE definition is what you first said (#1 above). As evidence I submit what Jesus did on the Sabbath when He picked heads of grain when it clearly WASN’T necessary. The Pharisees were so upset with Jesus for doing this precisely because it was obviously NOT necessary for Him to do so. Neither Jesus nor his disciples were starving. To the Pharisees it was utter lawlessness. The Pharisees understood that it was OK to break a lower law in service to a higher law. But what Jesus did here was an absolutely shocking thing – He wantonly broke a big law just so He and His disciples could have a nice little snack. Why did He do this? To contradict the Pharisees belief that righteousness could be obtained by being virtuous to an ethic based on biblically defined sin. (…whatever does not proceed from FAITH is sin.)

John 9:39-41

Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind." Some of the Pharisees near him heard this, and they said to him, "Are we also blind?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, 'We see,' your guilt remains.”

The sin of the Pharisees was that they insisted that they could SEE – they insisted that they could see the law (biblically defined sin) clearly enough to be able to condemn others. They falsely held to #2 above and refused to even acknowledge the possibility of #1.

Now based on #1 above I can certainly agree with you John that IF a person is going around purposely harming other people THEN that person is clearly sinning.

But based on what Jesus hammered the Pharisees on I can’t for the life of me sign up to say that I CLEARLY SEE how a loving couple engaging in anal intercourse is sinning. Are you SURE that this is not something like picking heads of grain on the Sabbath????

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

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/4/2003 4:39 PM (GMT -6)

Empiress,

As you are a universalist, what does this discussion really matter?

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/4/2003 4:49 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

I assume by "sodomy" that you mean anal sex. Have you ever thought about how strange it is that our culture has come to use the word "sodomy" to mean anal sex? 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 – why is there so much confusion about this simple and obvious fact?

We have gone over this point ad nauseum, Icon. I find your position quite untenable in the face of overwhelming biblical evidence and the common faith of virtually all Christians throughout history.

quote:
What is very confusing to me is that you seem to argue two contradictory things:

1. To love God and neighbor as self means BY DEFINITION that you are not sinning.
2. Christians can live free from sin in the sense that they never actually transgress laws.

John replies: What is contradictory about these two things?

quote:

You seem to be saying that IF a Christian is sinning by transgressing a law THEN they are not really a Christian. IF a man is having anal sex with his wife THEN he is not a Christian BY DEFINITION.

But you can’t have them both be BY DEFINITION. Either one is the definition or the other is. Which is it?

John E replies: For clarification of the point of view which I believe most logical and scriptural with regard to sinning Christians, I will refer to Charles Finney's Systematic Theology, Lecture XIV, "Moral Government" from the 1851 edition:

http://www.firesofrevival.com/st14.htm

Objection. Does a Christian cease to be a Christian, whenever he commits a sin? I answer:

1. Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident.

2. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned. He must incur the penalty of the law of God. If he does not, it must be because the law of God is abrogated. But if the law of God be abrogated, he has no rule of duty; consequently, can neither be holy nor sinful. If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that, with respect to the Christian, the penalty is for ever set aside, or abrogated, I reply--that to abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept; for a precept without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys; or Antinomianism is true.

3. When the Christian sins, he must repent, and "do his first works," or he will perish.

4. Until he repents he cannot be forgiven. In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground.

5. In two important respects the sinning Christian differs widely from the unconverted sinner:

(1.) In his relations to God. A Christian is a child of God. A sinning Christian is a disobedient child of God. An unconverted sinner is a child of the devil. A Christian sustains a covenant relation to God; such a covenant relation as to secure to him that discipline which tends to reclaim and bring him back, if he wanders away from God. "If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips." Ps. lxxxix. 30-34.

(2.) The sinning Christian differs from the unconverted man, in the state of his sensibility. In whatever way it takes place, every Christian knows that the state of his sensibility in respect to the things of God, has undergone a great change. Now it is true, that moral character does not lie in the sensibility, nor in the will's obeying the sensibility. Nevertheless our consciousness teaches us, that our feelings have great power in promoting wrong choice on the one hand, and in removing obstacles to right choice on the other. In every Christian's mind there is, therefore, a foundation laid for appeals to the sensibilities of the soul, that gives truth a decided advantage over the will. And multitudes of things in the experience of every Christian, give truth a more decided advantage over his will, through the intelligence, than is the case with unconverted sinners.

Obj. Can a man be born again, and then be unborn? I answer:

1. If there were anything impossible in this, then perseverance would be no virtue.

2. None will maintain, that there is anything naturally impossible in this, except it be those who hold to physical regeneration.

3. If regeneration consist in a change in the ruling preference of the mind, or in the ultimate intention, as we shall see it does, it is plain, that an individual can be born again, and afterwards cease to be virtuous.

4. That a Christian is able to apostatize, is evident, from the many warnings addressed to Christians in the Bible.

5. A Christian may certainly fall into sin and unbelief, and afterwards be renewed, both to repentance and faith.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 03/04/2003 9:53:01 PM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/4/2003 4:58 PM (GMT -6)

The following is from the lecture following the one I posted in the former thread, and should serve to further delineate the issues:

REMARKS.

1. If what has been said is true, we see that the church has fallen into a great and ruinous mistake, in supposing that a state of present sinlessness is a very rare, if not an impossible, attainment in this life. If the doctrine of this lecture be true, it follows that the very beginning of true religion in the soul, implies the renunciation of all sin. Sin ceases where holiness begins. Now, how great and ruinous must that error be, that teaches us to hope for heaven, while living in conscious sin; to look upon a sinless state, as not to be expected in this world; that it is a dangerous error to expect to stop sinning, even for an hour or a moment, in this world; and yet to hope for heaven! And how unreasonable must that state of mind be, that can brand as heretics those who teach, that God justifies no one, but upon condition of present sinlessness!*

*Their present sinlessness is not the ground, but only a sine quà non, of gospel justification.--See Lecture LVI, subject, "Justification."

2. How great and ruinous the error, that justification is conditionated upon a faith that does not purify the heart of the believer; that one may be in a state of justification who lives in the constant commission of more or less sin. This error has slain more souls, I fear, than all the universalism that ever cursed the world.

3. We see that, if a righteous man forsake his righteousness, and die in his sin, he must sink to hell.

4. We see, that whenever a Christian sins he comes under condemnation, and must repent and do his first works, or be lost.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/4/2003 5:04 PM (GMT -6)

Some LINKS found with a quick websearch: (using "BONHOEFFER" and "homosexual")

www.inplainsite.org/html/easy_believism.html

ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/chastity.htm

www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/1999/julaug1999/articles/PaulHomosexuality.shtml

www.churchmoraldebate.com/theo/greatlakes.htm

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 3/4/2003 5:44 PM (GMT -6)

Brandon said:

quote:
This is where I slightly depart company from those on the "non-affirming" side. It is wrong for religious gays to broad sweep and insist that because they can't change, NO ONE CAN.

I agree. Each person is a completely unique individual with different biological and psychological factors to deal with.

Brandon said:

quote:
Equally, those on the non-affirming side who HAVE shifted from homosexuality to hetrosexuality should never say that because they so completely changed everyone else who "really tries" will get the same results. We need to respect the individuality of each person's experience; every case is unique. Some change completely, some significantly, some in behavior more than in inner attractions. It is wrong for anyone to assume that everyone's experience will be just like theirs.

Again, I agree. Many of the leading experts of ‘reparative therapy’ readily admit to the fact that they don’t believe everyone can change their basic orientation.

“At New Hope Ministries we do not attempt to make heterosexuals out of homosexuals. Rather, we attempt to change a person's identity, the way a person looks at himself."
-Frank Worthen, Leader of ex-gay ministry

Brandon said:

quote:
Lastly, this is why I think it is a waste of time to discuss experience. Whether a "gay Christian" is truly Christian or "born again" or not. It's too intangible. We can argue that if someone continues in sin, he risks hardening his heart toward God or reaping corruption. But we cannot see inside a person's soul to determine how hardened, backslidden or decieved he/she may be.

Yes. This is an extremely important point.

Brandon said:

quote:
It is more useful to center the homosexual debate on the Bible instead of the "spiritual state of the person." No matter how proud, confident or loved by God a person is, he can walk in darkness without knowing it, which is exactly why we need an objective standard against which we judge our actions.

Two responses:

The first is that people’s understanding and interpretation of the Bible on many, many issues is divergent. I’m not sure we can “solve” the problem by pushing a particular reading of a few texts in Scripture that may or may not be actually dealing with the question facing us today about homosexual monogamy.

Second, we do not have an “objective standard.” The Bible is not “objective” to the extent that translators and interpreters have chosen English words which are in keeping with their own theological bent (and bias), even when the words they chose were not true to the original Greek and Hebrew renderings. I don’t feel that we can just pick up any English Bible and suppose that we have in our hands an “objective” standard….the Bible has been subjectified by translators for centuries. Having studied Greek and Hebrew, I was disturbed to discover how many different ways a person can choose to translate any passage!

But not only are we struggling with this problem of subjectivity, but when we come to the Bible we ALREADY have our own “less than objective” understanding of what verses mean because we have been trained by our particular theological traditions how to view it.
For example, a Roman Catholic is going to read 1Peter 4:6: “For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though judged in the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God.” And they will say, “See this is talking about purgatory!” But a Protestant who has been taught that purgatory doesn’t exist will not see that concept at all. We are all bringing our own subjective perspectives with us every time we read the Bible.

Thanks for the good discussion,
~E

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 3/4/2003 7:30 PM (GMT -6)

John asked:

quote:
Do you believe Christians can live free from sin?

I believe Christians can defeat particular sins in their lives but I don’t believe we ever reach a point in which we are totally free of sin all the time. What do you think?

John asked:

quote:
If it is genetic in origin, how does it get passed down?

Studies have shown that sexual orientation is passed down by the mother via one or more genes on a specific chromosome. This means that one does not have to be a homosexual in order to carry the genes that determine a child’s sexual orientation.

However:

1. Throughout most of history it did not matter what a woman’s sexual orientation was, women were considered the property of males (this is still the case in some countries) and their purpose was to reproduce offspring for their husband. This means that the genetic material for producing children with a homosexual orientation would have been passed down throughout human history.

2. Many lesbians I know were married and bore children before coming to terms with their sexual orientation. Some lesbians choose marriage to a man and deny their orientation in order to conform to society’s expectations.

3. Now that women have the ability to live according to their sexual orientation, there is the option of “in vitro fertilization” and lesbians are able to bear children and pass their genes on to future generations.

(The same is true for males in that homosexual men are often married and have children despite their sexual orientation and homosexual men can donate sperm for use in in vitro fertilization.)

If homosexuality is genetic, it is impossible that it would have historically disappeared and it certainly won’t disappear in today’s technological era.

John said:

quote:
No, the fact that you: (A) Quote humanistic scientists' assessments in support of homosexuality being unchangeable; and (B) Deny the plain statements of the Bible which flatly condemn men having sex with men, causes me to conclude that you prefer humanistic science as authoritative over Scripture.

If that is the standard we are to use, then if you believe that the earth is not at the center of the Solar System (and universe) then you are preferring humanistic science as authoritative over Scripture. If you do not believe that the earth is flat or that it is only a few thousand years old, then you are preferring humanistic science as authoritative over the Bible.

The other problem here is that you are not admitting that I am NOT simply rejecting the Bible outright, I am saying I interpret and understand it differently than you. There is a difference. And the fact is, the single most authoritative thing in my life is the command of Jesus to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” That command takes precedence and authority over everything in my life, and so it is quite erroneous to say that my “bible” is science. It is also that command that leads me to believe that I MUST love gays and accept them for who they are and welcome them into the household of God.

John said:

quote:
and there will be less and less who even try to be healed by the power of God if you have your way

While you may not believe it, “my way” (as you put it) is simply that all people will be in the deepest possible communion with God. If someone hates themselves for something they can’t change or believes that God is angry with them because they can’t change who they are, then they are not going to be in communion with God and will never be healed of whatever God wants to heal them of. I simply desire whatever is best for a person.

John asked:

quote:
Little girls? Where do you come up with this?

Where do I come up with this? I didn’t, ancient Jewish culture (and most ancient cultures) did. Girls ages 11-14 were regularly married to men much older than them because men had to establish themselves financially before marriage. The marriages you read about in the Bible normally were between an older male and an adolescent girl.

John said:

quote:
In any case, the New Testament does not condone rape of women ever, and slavery is mentioned, but merely as a reality in Roman society, not as God's best for mankind.

Numbers 31:17-18

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

The Old and New Testaments are full of references which not only condone slavery, but outright approve of it and demand the obedience of slaves to masters. It goes much farther than merely mentioning it as a reality:

Eph. 6:5: Slaves, be obedient to them that are [your] masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

Col. 3:22 Slaves, obey in all things [your] masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

1 Timothy 6:1 Let as many slaves as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and [his] doctrine be not blasphemed.

Titus 2:9 Exhort slaves to be obedient unto their own masters, [and] to please [them] well in all [things]; not answering again.

1 Peter 2:18: Slaves, [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward.

John asked:

quote:
As you are a universalist, what does this discussion really matter?

1. Because no matter what happens “in the end” it still matters how we treat one another and live our lives here and now. We are called to combat evil and love one another now…today is the day of salvation.

2. I have seen too many homosexuals live lives of terrible rejection, pain, loneliness, and depression including suicide to be silent.

3. While I believe that universalism is most consistent with God’s grace, no one knows what will happen ultimately. Also, I believe in hell, I merely believe that it is temporary rather than eternal. I don’t desire that any should go to hell.

Peace,
~E

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 3/4/2003 7:59 PM (GMT -6)

OK, I'll jump in with my two cents.

First a brief comment on something Icon has repeatedly said:

quote:
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 – why is there so much confusion about this simple and obvious fact?

quote:
I mean, who would want to be apart of any group who says that by definition, who you are is evil?

Response: The implied claim here is that homosexuality is a trait that is so central to the core of the homosexual's being that to condemn the practice of homosexuality as a sin is to condemn the person of the homosexual. Consequently, with respect to this issue, one cannot "hate the sin and love the sinner". I think this claim doubly confused.

First, what does it mean to say of someone that they ARE a homosexual? In general, when we say that of a person X that he is a Y there are at least three different things we could mean:
(1) X is essentially a Y.
(2) X is habitually or dispositionally a Y.
(3) X is behaviorally a Y.
For example, we might say of an arbitrary individual Sam that he is essentially a human being, that he is (habitually) an alcoholic, and that he is (behaviorally) a truck driver.

The claim under question takes it for granted that homosexuality is something that is essential to one's being, such that if one is truly a homosexual then one cannot not be a homosexual. But this is quite doubtful. To begin with, whatever genetic basis there is to homosexuality, nothing that anyone has found so far would support anything more than some people are genetically dispositioned to homosexuality. Furthermore, there are several developmental pathways and external factors that are known to be positively correlated with homosexuality. The most well-known developmental pathway for male homosexuality is the dominant mother/distant father scenario, but there are others. Most cases of homosexuality can be explained by external factors that psychologists have identified. Thus, most cases of homosexuality are not innate. Finally, we have the presence of ex-homosexuals like Dennis Jernigan. One might try to dismiss this evidence by saying that they weren't really homosexual to begin with. Such a dismissive response, however, is question-begging. It assumes that homosexuality is an essential property of some persons when that is the very point at issue.

I conclude that there is good reason to doubt the claim that homosexuality is an essential property of some persons. Rather, homosexuals are such dispositionally and/or behaviorally.

Second, it follows from what I have already said that condemnation of homosexuality as a sin is not ipso facto a condemnation of the homosexual as a person. We can make this point clearer by asking in what sense homosexuality is a sin. Is having a disposition (an "orientation") to homosexuality sinful? Is engaging in homosexual behavior sinful? Are both sinful? Or neither?

The Bible is quite clear that homosexual behavior is a sin, but having a homosexual disposition or orientation is not necessarily a sin. Having a homosexual disposition may result in temptation to engage in the behavior, but temptation is not sin unless one yields to it.

Thus, 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").

Alan

Edited by - Alan Rhoda on 03/05/2003 02:35:16 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/5/2003 10:51 AM (GMT -6)

(from: www.inplainsite.org/html/easy_believism.html)

quote:
The Germany in which Bonhoeffer lived was one in which God was all but dead. The churches, compromised by years of maintaining established status and privilege, and indoctrinated by liberal theologians and philosophers, had so diluted the word of God and the Gospel message, that sin, repentance, and the cross were all but gone from German Christianity. God was love and little else. This was cheap grace as Bonhoeffer defined it:

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without discipline, communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

Surely this is as familiar to us in 1995 America as it was to Bonhoeffer in 1935 Germany. It is the warm, fuzzy Christianity of modern Christian liberalism.

But liberal Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on cheap grace. It can enter our thinking through legalism, through poor theology and through faddish psychology. In fact it can come in through any type of thinking that leans too heavily on man's understanding and too lightly on the written word of God. In ministering to homosexual overcomers I have heard it expressed in any number of ways:

accepts me and blesses me just as I am.

I am saved--period!

I can't do any better; God understands

This is a stage I need to go through until I've really dealt with my issues. God is patient. I've done everything I could; now its all up to God.

Of course, there is a great deal of truth in each of these statements. In fact, understood a certain way, each could possibly be defended in its own right. That is one reason why these views can be so persuasive. Their strength also lies in their power to justify our living the life we want to lead. Because these views have the strength and power to sway true believers, we need to be alert to them. Cheap grace is seductive. It presents a type of seduction that we, as overcomers, need to be armed against. Let's look at each of these and how it can work in the life of the homosexual overcomer. I recently met with a man who was a part of Regeneration when it started over 15 years ago. When we started putting the ministry together, he had recently been through a real encounter with God and had a strong sense that God wanted him to leave homosexuality behind. For a while he was doing well, living a chaste life, although I sensed that in some ways his surrender may not have been very deep. Then he started to fall sexually.

At about the same time he went on a week-end retreat sponsored by a well-known Christian renewal movement. Worldwide, through this movement many people have been led to Christ and many others have deepened their walk. The particular group that my friend was with, however, was clearly infected with the virus of cheap grace: "God loves you and accepts you just as you are; there is no reason for you to give up your homosexuality. We are freed from such legalism."

My friend bought into it completely. All love and no law. What an intoxicating message. In fact this form of cheap grace is like a narcotic. It feels so good. Why go onto anything else? My friend has stayed with this view all of these years.

. . .

First, such a cavalier attitude to the Lordship of Christ should certainly cause one to question if there has been a valid conversion in the first place.

Second, this is a totally self-centered view of our relationship with God, there being no consideration of God's desires.

The Third expression of cheap grace -- I can't do any better; God understands -- is offered by many modern theologians. It was the approach of Fr. Charles Curran, the Roman Catholic theologian at Georgetown University whose right to teach was taken away by the Vatican several years ago. He and others today, especially moderate to liberal Protestant theologians will acknowledge that God's plan is heterosexuality, and God has declared that there is to be no sex outside of marriage, but for some people, in their view, this simply isn't possible, and therefore, they should seek committed homosexual relationships and we should support them in such a life.

Of course, the great pitfall in this way of thinking is the deceitful heart. Who can make such a judgment that I have tried my best and failed. You can't because you don't live inside my skin, and I can't trust my own judgment in these situations for obvious reasons. This is why God's standard is for us to be perfect. Even though we will certainly fail at perfection in this life, it is the only standard that we can hold forth unless we believe we can usurp God's role and devise an individual standard for each person. God's standard is perfection, and we do fail, but that's why we have grace and the instruments of confession and forgiveness. To set a standard for ourselves other than God's is to take the terrible risk of not availing ourselves of His grace and forgiveness when we need it.

The Fourth view of cheap grace -- this is a stage I need to go through until I have dealt with my issues -- again puts us in God's role. This time we, not God, determine how God will work in our lives -- what path He will take us down. We substitute psychological self-diagnosis for the standards of God. God heals and changes us in many ways. Our role is to pursue God and seek His will for our lives.

While in such pursuit, we are in the place where He can work in us according to His timing and in His ways. Thus far in my (the author named below writes) 15 years of ministry , most of those who have taken this path, have never found that they get their issues resolved in the midst of the homosexual life. In fact, what usually brings us to the place where we will really deal with our issues is pain. Going back into the homosexual life is to take up again our anesthetic, avoiding the pain that will bring us to the death and resurrection that will be the source of our healing.

The Fifth and final form of cheap grace -- I have done everything I can; it is now up to God -- is the most difficult to challenge because it comes closest to the truth. Sometimes it is true. Our admission of our utter helplessness and an accompanying deep surrender to the Lord is often the turning point in overcoming any life dominating sin. But for the Christian, this must be spoken at the deepest level of grief. It must be spoken with a knowledge that our sins deeply hurt our Lord. This cry must come with a heart broken from personal failure. In other words, it must come spontaneously out of our deepest heart. Until it does come spontaneously, we need to keep on trying. The surrender that it expresses is a surrender of the total self, not just a surrender of the particular inconvenient weakness. For some, such as me, it came at conversion. For those already Christians, it comes as a major turning point in the person's total walk with the Lord.

So we have all of these rationalizations open to us. Through various forms of cheap grace, we seek to have both the Lord and the our sinful way of life. What is the alternative? According to Bonhoeffer, it is costly grace:

Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it, a man will gladly go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to by which the merchant will sell all of his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble, it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his net and follow him. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives man the true life. What does this mean for the homosexual overcomer? Is it another argument as to why we should not give up the battle? Yes, as a matter of fact it is. it is only in the battle that we will experience God's grace. Sometimes we try, and we find that truly we can do all things through him. Sometimes we try and fail, and lying wounded at the side of the road, his grace comes to us as the good Samaritan. He binds up our wounds, lifts us up and carries us to a safe place, a place of healing.

Cheap grace is presumptuous; costly grace is humble. Cheap grace asserts the self; costly grace flows out of taking up our cross daily.

The grace that Jesus offers us is not just His ultimate victory in our lives -- the promise that at the end of the road we will experience the healing that we long for. It is also, the grace for today, that in our daily struggles, win or lose, we know that He is with us, and this realization more than compensates for whatever price we must pay to try and walk with Him.

Bonhoeffer writes:

Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of His Son: 'you were bought with a price,' and what has cost God so much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon His Son too dear a price to pay for our llfe, but delivered Him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.

We must take those words to heart and incorporate them into our lives.

Copyright © 1995, Alan P. Medinger and Regeneration. All rights reserved

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 03/05/2003 3:57:36 PM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/5/2003 3:05 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

John asked:
quote:
Do you believe Christians can live free from sin?

Empiress replied: I believe Christians can defeat particular sins in their lives but I don’t believe we ever reach a point in which we are totally free of sin all the time. What do you think?

John replies I find that living free from sin is the Christian's basic duty. If sin is inevitable, it's hardly blameworthy.

John said: No, the fact that you: (A) Quote humanistic scientists' assessments in support of homosexuality being unchangeable; and (B) Deny the plain statements of the Bible which flatly condemn men having sex with men, causes me to conclude that you prefer humanistic science as authoritative over Scripture

Empiress said: If that is the standard we are to use, then if you believe that the earth is not at the center of the Solar System (and universe) then you are preferring humanistic science as authoritative over Scripture. If you do not believe that the earth is flat or that it is only a few thousand years old, then you are preferring humanistic science as authoritative over the Bible.

John replies: As we have clear scientific evidence that the world is roughly spherical, it does not follow that I am preferring humanistic science as authoritative over the Bible by affirming this. What study has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is genetic?

Empiress said: The other problem here is that you are not admitting that I am NOT simply rejecting the Bible outright, I am saying I interpret and understand it differently than you. There is a difference. And the fact is, the single most authoritative thing in my life is the command of Jesus to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” That command takes precedence and authority over everything in my life, and so it is quite erroneous to say that my “bible” is science. It is also that command that leads me to believe that I MUST love gays and accept them for who they are and welcome them into the household of God.

John replies Yes, we MUST love all; no, we are not obligated to welcome all into the household of God without condition.

John asked:
quote:
Little girls? Where do you come up with this?

Empiress said: Where do I come up with this? I didn’t, ancient Jewish culture (and most ancient cultures) did. Girls ages 11-14 were regularly married to men much older than them because men had to establish themselves financially before marriage. The marriages you read about in the Bible normally were between an older male and an adolescent girl.

John replies: "Little girl" does not equate with "pubescent young lady."

I will restate what you apparently overlooked in my previous post. with my main points emphasized: John said:[quote] In any case, the New Testament does not condone rape of women ever, and slavery is mentioned, but merely as a reality in Roman society, not as God's best for mankind.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 3/5/2003 4:52 PM (GMT -6)

Alan Rhoda

quote:

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 – why is there so much confusion about this simple and obvious fact?

Response: Icon, you commit a fundamental error in logic in your interpretation of this passage. It is clear, as you point out, that the men of Sodom were inhospitable (a bad thing) and that they apparently thought raping people was OK (another bad thing). But it does not follow that the city was destroyed for these reasons and not also because of the rampant practice of homosexuality. In order to maintain your interpretation you need to positively exclude that last point--but on what evidence?

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”?

If so, how is that different than saying that without direct contradictory evidence we cannot conclusively say that Sodom was not destroyed because of their rampant practice of picking heads of grain on the Sabbath? Or their rampant practice of divorce and remarriage?

The problem with your assertion of a logic error is that it contains a false presupposition. It is like asking a person to produce evidence that they have stopped beating their wife. I simply reject that presupposition and provide direct evidence for why God DID destroy Sodom:

Ezekiel 16:47ff

"You not only followed their (Sodom's) ways, and acted according to their abominations; within a very little time you were more corrupt than they in all your ways. As I live, says the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."

God makes it clear through the prophet Ezekiel what the guilt of Sodom was. And notice that the key problem was that they did not act lovingly toward the poor and needy.

So why in the world has the word “sodomy” come to mean anal sex?

Is it because when the (apparently male) angels visited Lot the men of the city wanted to rape them? OK, so why doesn’t “sodomy” mean anal rape? Isn’t that what we really mean when we say someone was “sodomized”?

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. But can’t we see what a totally self-serving definition this is? We get to feel righteous because we are just not like those horrible wicked perverts of Sodom and Gomorrah. We don’t for a second look at ourselves and say – whoaaa…the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were so wicked in God’s eyes because they had a really nice materialistic leisure society going (kind of like us) but did not aid the poor and needy. Now THAT is just a little too close to home. Which one of us doesn’t bear some of that guilt right here and right now?

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 03/05/2003 11:35:03 PM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 3/5/2003 6:46 PM (GMT -6)

Alan said:

First a brief comment on something Icon has repeatedly said:

quote:
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 – why is there so much confusion about this simple and obvious fact?

quote:

Just a biblical comment on Sodom, for perspective:
Check out Ezekiel 16:35-50
Jerusalem is getting reamed out big time. It is interesting to me that Jerusalem is compared UNfavorably with Sodom. 16:47ff

"You not only followed their (Sodom's) ways, and acted according to their abominations; within a very little time you were more corrupt than they in all your ways. As I live, says the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."

I think this is important because clearly we have God speaking through the prophet Exekiel about the sins of Sodom. Jerusalem's sins of idolatry and unfaithfulness to God are so much more damaging than the sins of Sodom that they can be compared as they are above. What is more, notice what is not even mentioned in the text on Sodom's sin? The principle sin of Sodom is actually its perversion of their hospitality toward others.

Semeia:

If we look at one of the more extensive descriptions of what was going on in Sodom, we see that what was happening sexually was GANG RAPE on an unimaginable scale. When a visitor would enter Sodom he would be greeted by a gang of townspeople demanding to RAPE him. Another thing to notice about this passage is that the supposed good guy (Lot) tries to protect his visitors by OFFERING THE GANG OF RAPISTS HIS VIRGIN DAUGHTERS INSTEAD!!! And he was the good guy in town!

When you read the description below, Alan, do you really equate the actions of the townspeople as having anything at all to do with monogamous homosexuality, which is what we are talking about?

Genesis 19

Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

Alan said:

The claim under question takes it for granted that homosexuality is something that is essential to one's being, such that if one is truly a homosexual then one cannot not be a homosexual. But this is quite doubtful. To begin with, whatever genetic basis there is to homosexuality, nothing that anyone has found so far would support anything more than some people are genetically dispositioned to homosexuality. Furthermore, there are several developmental pathways and external factors that are known to be positively correlated with homosexuality. The most well-known developmental pathway for male homosexuality is the dominant mother/distant father scenario, but there are others. Most cases of homosexuality can be explained by external factors that psychologists have identified.

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. 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. (In fact, the dominant mother/distant father scenario belongs in the same outdated/disproved category as the supposition that autism is caused by cold, distant mothers. There is simply no evidence to support it.)

If you have any doubt that what I am saying is true, here is a way to test it:

Simply pick up a copy of the Yellow Pages of any sizable nearby city. Look up Psychologist and start calling people randomly (you can stick with the PhD’s if you prefer) and ask the professionals what the data is on this subject. You might also ask them if the data supports the notion that homosexuality is something that the majority of homosexuals can change about themselves. (I say the majority, because no one on this side of the argument has ever said that people toward the center of the sexual spectrum cannot change. Certainly there are “bisexuals” who are close to the center who can “choose” heterosexual leanings over homosexual ones. But they are a small minority of the homosexual population, and their ability to change given their makeup says nothing about the average homosexual’s ability to change, given a quite different makeup on the sexual spectrum.)

Alan:

I conclude that there is good reason to doubt the claim that homosexuality is an essential property of some persons. Rather, homosexuals are such dispositionally and/or behaviorally.

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?

Most heterosexuals do not agree with that view for themselves. They speak and act as if their heterosexuality IS AN ESSENTIAL PROPERTY of who they are. They say that they COULD NEVER have sex with someone of the same gender, not because it is a prohibition, but because it is essentially goes against who they are.

Are you someone who refrains from homosexual sex only because it is forbidden, or because “essentially” you are a heterosexual and would never think to do otherwise?

And if heterosexuality is an essential property of who you are, why wouldn’t homosexuality be an essential property of a homosexual?

Alan said:

Thus, 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:

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)? When you were around that person, how would you express hatred for their sin? Would you remind them what Jesus said about it? Would you tell them to divorce their current spouse and remarry their original spouse? (Of course that would put the current spouse into future adultery if they remarried, so we do have a bit of a problem, don’t we?) Would you advise them to remain celibate in their current marriage, to avoid living in adultery? What would loving them look like? How do you “hate the sin” in this case, which is ongoing, and involves two people in a loving but unsanctioned relationship? Do you actually even “feel” hatred for the sin of the adultery of a remarriage, when you are around someone who is remarried?

Historically, divorced and remarried people were told many of the things that straight Christians tell gay Christians today – that they needed to end their current relationship, stay celibate, etc – and they were kicked out of the church until they complied. We now call that sort of thing spiritual abuse, and are appalled when we discover divorced and remarried people being treated in such a way within the church.

Also, tell me what this would look like concerning an overweight person who was involved in the ongoing sin of “gluttony” – which simply means “overeating” (or over-consuming anything, really)? Do you find it helpful to tell people how much you hate the “sin” of which their fat is evidence? (And if you say there are biological factors involved that limit their choice, I couldn’t agree more – just like with gays.) Do you find that telling overweight people that their overeating is sinful helps them? And if you don’t tell them that, why is their ongoing sin less hateful than the gay person’s – which inspires you to come on a public board and announce that they are sinning in a way that we should hate?

In spite of what “haters” of homosexuality say, 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.

Luke 11:46 – Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

Luke 11:52 – “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."

How do Christians hinder people from entering the kingdom? By loading people up with burdens they cannot bear.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Edited by - Semeia on 03/05/2003 11:53:04 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 3/5/2003 6:46 PM (GMT -6)

John Earp

quote:

What is very confusing to me is that you seem to argue two contradictory things:

1. To love God and neighbor as self means BY DEFINITION that you are not sinning.
2. Christians can live free from sin in the sense that they never actually transgress laws.

John replies: What is contradictory about these two things?

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 – BUT, it was NOT sin to do so. Christians live free from sin to the extent that all their action is done out of love. They do NOT and CANNOT live free from sin in the sense that they never transgress a law – even a biblically-defined law. Tansgressing a law is NOT the definition of sin. Jesus transgressed laws freely in the service of loving others.

Again, either sin is defined by transgressing laws or it is defined as lack of love for God and others. You can’t have it both ways.

Romans 13:8 - Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Jesus perfectly fulfilled the law even though He transgressed it.

Romans 13:10 - Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

The purpose of the law is to guide us toward loving action. When we are taking loving action the law is fulfilled – whether we transgress it or not. In fact, to try to perfectly keep the law is to sin by not seeking to perfectly fulfill the law. An example of this is poetry. There are rules for how to do good poetry. If the novice breaks these rules we will all agree that the resultant poem is not very good. However, a master poet in creating great poetry regularly breaks these rules. Laws and rules can never be a substitute for what they point us to which is loving action.

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.

A loving gay monogamous relationship cannot be shown to be sinful under the proper definition of sin (love God and love your neighbor) anymore than picking heads of grain on the Sabbath was sinful for Jesus to do even though He quite clearly broke the letter of the law.

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 03/05/2003 11:53:09 PM

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 3/5/2003 7:17 PM (GMT -6)

"According to evangelical Bible scholar William Brownlee: "'sodomy' (so-called) in Genesis is basically oppression of the weak and helpless; and the oppression of the stranger is the basic element of Genesis 19:1-9." Yale's John Boswell notes that "Sodom is used as a symbol of evil in dozens of places [in the Bible] but not in a single instance is the sin of the Sodomites specified as homosexuality." Listen to the prophet Ezekiel (16:48-49) on the sin of Sodom: "As I live, says the Lord God, ... This was the sin of your sister city of Sodom: she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in my eyes." (Cf. Matthew 10:15) The men of Sodom tried to dominate the strangers at Lot's house by subjecting them to sexual abuse. Such attempted gang-rape is about humiliation and violence, not same-sex affection."
From http://www.ecinc.org/Scriptures/genesis19.htm

I find it very telling that people have altered the term "sodomy" to refer to homosexual sex rather than rape or the other sins Sodom was guilty of. And the term is always used derogatorily it seems...I find it far more degrading than many of the slurs used against gays.

John said:

quote:
John replies Yes, we MUST love all; no, we are not obligated to welcome all into the household of God without condition.

It seems one of the fundamental disagreements driving this discussion is our view of the role of the Church. I believe the Church must accept people as they are...from the raggedy punk rock street kid to the rich bitter old lady next door. And after we welcome them and love them with God's love, we must persevere with them faithfully and trust that God will heal and rehabilitate them in whatever ways they (and we) need to be.

I am not interested in classifying other people's behavior because I know that we are all sinners in need of reconciliation. I need to stay focused on my own behavior. And God is doing a great work in all of us. Whether or not a person is in sin is something they need to be in prayer about and we can encourage people to have open hearts, but the Church, as the main vehicle to God's presence, cannot close her doors on people out of moral superiority. Welcoming and loving and walking with people towards inner integrity without rejection is not the same "cheap grace." Love always demands the best of people, but it does in such a way that is merciful and forgiving...this is agape love. The Church must also do this with a finger pointed at herself...for the sins of the church are nearly insurmountable. If we do not have complete humility in dealing with the world, we have nothing.

John said:

quote:
John replies: "Little girl" does not equate with "pubescent young lady."

Ummm...have you ever seen an 11 year old girl? Today youth mature much faster than they used to, but 11 years old is still a "little girl" in my book. And really, I don't see what difference it makes...we still trust "psychology" enough to call a 30 year old man having sex with an 13 year old girl "rape" today, yet the Bible condones it. Should we alter our view because the Bible condones it?

John asked:

quote:
What study has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is genetic?

There are dozens of studies that demonstrate there are genetic factors in determining one's sexual orientation. This document: http://www.pflag.org/education/schools/docs/justthefacts.pdf is endorsed by the:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Counseling Association
American Association of School Administrators
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
American School Health Association
Interfaith Alliance Foundation
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Education Association

and they all state that one's essential sexual orientation is not something one can or even should "change."

I don't believe that any of these studies or the words of authorities in this area are going to change people's minds about homosexuality if they are convinced it is a moral evil however. That is the main reason I would urge people to get to know gay men and women who are Christians and really wrestle with them on this issue prayerfully.

Alan said:

quote:
I conclude that there is good reason to doubt the claim that homosexuality is an essential property of some persons. Rather, homosexuals are such dispositionally and/or behaviorally.

This is the major point of disagreement. Most heterosexuals see their heterosexuality as an "essential" property of who they are, why not homosexuals? I find it odd that we would try and divide up aspects of people into essential and non-essential categories. Is my being a woman "essential" to I am? I would say yes. Is my sexuality? I feel that it is...it is part of what makes me who I am. Certainly studies support the idea that sexual orientation is determined before one makes any conscious decisions about it.

When we say that, defintionally, having sexual desires for people of the same sex is "evil" then we ARE in fact saying that being a homosexual: a person who has sexual desires for people of the same sex, is "evil." It's really as simple as that.

Thanks,
~E

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/5/2003 8:12 PM (GMT -6)

Icon
What is very confusing to me is that you seem to argue two contradictory things:

1. To love God and neighbor as self means BY DEFINITION that you are not sinning.
2. Christians can live free from sin in the sense that they never actually transgress laws.

John replies: What is contradictory about these two things?

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.

Icon: Again, either sin is defined by transgressing laws or it is defined as lack of love for God and others. You can’t have it both ways.

John Actually, Paul had it "both ways" (even given your definitions): Romans. 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.

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.

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 01:23:23 AM

Edited by - John Earp on 03/06/2003 01:25:46 AM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/5/2003 8:20 PM (GMT -6)

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 (see my comments below on Romans 6). Of course, I realize many will simply mock the clear calls of Christ to obey in all things (a fundamental part of the great commission of Matt. 28:19-20), by saying that to attempt to do so is to unavoidably sin, but this seems quite counterintuitive: In seeking, by the grace of God, to not grieve God the Father by sinning, one is in fact sinning? Away with such wretched sophistry!

The following tract makes a decisive case against Sinnianity:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Revival_Theology/files/Who%20Shall%20See%20God%202.htm

The Bible is abundantly clear that:

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.

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)

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)

8. That Christians, because they have obeyed the truth, have 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).

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. Compare John 8:31ff: So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, {then} you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

John 8:34 ¶ Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. 35 "The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36 "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

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."

God hates sin, all forms of it. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil.

As Charles Finney said, "A Christian is justified no longer than he obeys."

As Jesus said, "Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? Luke 6:46

and,

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.

and,

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.'

As to Jesus' statements about the log and the speck, He himself plainly states what one is to do:

Matt 7:5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Of course, I realize that many would cavil at Jesus' statement here as well by saying this it is absolutely impossible, prior to one's physical death, to remove the log from one's eye, but nevertheless, it is Christ's own plain statement. If he had meant otherwise, why did he not speak otherwise? As many criticize others for "judgmentalism" they have in that act become judgmental as well. When one claims to walk in the right way of love and then tries to set it in juxtaposition to what one perceives as judgmentalism, one has in fact have become judgmental as well.

Readers who are interested in more information on Christian Perfection are kindly directed to the links on my website. Many great men and women of God throughout history (including even many Calvinists) have disagreed sharply with the idea that a Christian can continue in sin and still justly claim to stand justified before God.

(All scriptures NASB)

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 8:58:13 PM

59 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:48 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual