This was originally posted at Modern March
Unless you live under a rock, you have seen the latest news on the Proposition 8 case. Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violates the constitution, a ruling that could potentially overturn the California voters’ decision that same-sex marriage should remain illegal.
Expectedly, Judge Walker’s decision has flared much debate over the issue of homosexuality. Many Christians, though not all, have been up in arms for years over the idea that same-sex marriage will be made legal nationally, and decisions like this could propel that concern to a reality. It is not outlandish to presume that if votes can be motioned to essentially be counted void, it’s only a matter of time before the federal process of voting will be undermined under the pressure of protesting nationwide. In fact, we may already be there.
Furthermore, the ruling states that Proposition 8 is nothing more than the brainchild of the “private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples,” attributing this to such groups as conservative Christianity, and says that such a view has no place in law. To put it bluntly, this ruling insinuates that Christians should have no right of conscience to discuss or debate their concerns or beliefs. Never mind the fact that 44 states have specific laws that establish marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It is also ironic that the “private moral view” of Judge Walker allows him to impose on law. These loopholes make a mockery of the voting system.
Simply put, this is a debate that includes conservative Christians but is not at all limited to Christian thought. We are not alone in the outrage at Judge Walker’s ruling. In light of this, how should Christians in particular react to this news and to homosexuality in general?
With Biblical Conviction
It is our right, nay, our duty to respond with concern about the legalization of same-sex marriage. Biblically, marriage is specifically reserved for one man and one woman as created by God and reflects Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). Scripture describes homosexuality as “dishonorable,” “shameless,” and “contrary to nature” (Romans 1:26-27). So, in the eyes of the Christian, there is no such thing as same-sex marriage because that would make Christ and His Church dishonorable, shameless, and contrary to nature.
Culture argues that Christians are merely imposing their bigoted religious convictions on America, but this is not the case with law-making in a pluralistic democracy. Laws in a system of government like ours do not come to pass because of a consensus worldview; rather, they come to pass when multiple worldviews converge in agreement that something is normal for societal health. So to be fair, this is not just a Christian argument, cultures and religions for all of time have agreed that same-sex relations are not normal. There are not enough Christians to overpower the government in a way that bans same-sex marriage. Many atheists and Buddhists and post-modernists alike disagree with same-sex marriage and this is why these laws exist.
As Christians being “in the world but not of it,” we are called to place God’s authority higher than the world’s while simultaneously living under the authority of those God has placed over us. We have the ability to vote, to voice our opinions, and to hold court in the presence of these authorities and that is where we can best try to defend our convictions in a system that will not allow us to dictatorially control it.
With Biblical Compassion
There is a tension that Christians are in the middle of when dealing with the Bible and the government. There are times when a law is passed or a President makes a bold statement that does not align with Scripture. As with abortion, same-sex marriage may be a controversial topic that becomes a national, legal, regular way of life in America. The appropriate response is not hate and venom. The folks at Westboro spew enough hate for the rest of us.
Instead, let us focus on compassion towards homosexuals as this process plays out. We should not condone their actions or bow to Walker and those who support same-sex marriage, but we should love them and pray for them. Homosexuals have souls, just like alcoholics, wife-beaters, gossipers, hypocrites, and you with any multitude of sins that attack you daily. Homosexuality is not its own separate level of sin. I don’t remember seeing in Scripture where God gives a list of sins that He’s more cool with than others. You are no better than they are, you have your own God-hating sin and so do I. You have been saved by grace and this should cause you to have grace for others, not elitism.
Brothers and sisters, this is nothing new. The apostles were no less at odds with their culture and governing authorities than we are today. As they did, we should make God’s name known even more powerfully through the preaching of the Word, through constant Gospel-centered joy in the face of obstacles, and through prayer for those who need a Savior.
Connect with Brandon on Twitter
Dave Miller (87)
Debbie Kaufman (54)
Rick Patrick (49)
Bart Barber (30)
Chris Roberts (29)
Christiane (28)
Frank (28)
Bob Hadley (27)
Greg Harvey (26)
William Thornton (25)
The fact is, Proposition 8 is going to be voted down by the Supreme Court. Further, the culture has already decided that saying homosexuality is a sin is the equivilant of racism. Christians are going to be forced to choose between cowtowing to public opinion or continuing to proclaim what the inerrant word of God clearly says.
I’m not sure that there is an easy answer. I’ve come to realize over the years, however, that someone cannot be a political enemy and the mission field at the same time. And there is no way to say “Homosexuality is a sin but Christ can forgive any sin if a person repents and places their faith in Him” without being told that you’re spewing hate speech. No matter how kindly you say it, the suggestion that there is a standard (the bible) and that standard reveals that God calls that behavior sinful is considered hateful.
““Homosexuality is a sin but Christ can forgive any sin if a person repents and places their faith in Him” without being told that you’re spewing hate speech.”
Well, Joe, you have to realize that not all Christian people buy into the belief that having just homosexual tendencies is ‘always a choice’.
For those that do believe it is always a choice, your statement is in line with their form of Christianity.
For those that do NOT believe it is always a choice, your statement is not Christian in the extreme. (Control your temper, keep reading)
So YOUR statement is automatically going to be rejected by all the Christian people who accept that a person may have homosexual tendencies that are ‘not in the natural order’, but these individuals are blameless if they live a celibate life.
Your statement only works to represent groups who hold that no one is BORN with these tendencies, instead they CHOOSE these tendencies.
That’s just ONE aspect to think about.
There are many other considerations, but I will leave that for others to develop.
Example: the teaching of my own Church’s catechism is NOT in agreement with your ‘statement’:
“Its (homosexuality) psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
The Orthodox Research Institute’s Father Hopko has written this statement in his article ‘The Homosexual Christian’:
“The homosexual Christian is called to a particularly rigorous battle. His or her struggle is an especially ferocious one. It is not made any easier by the mindless, truly demonic hatred of those who despise and ridicule those who carry this painful and burdensome cross; nor by the mindless, equally demonic affirmation of homosexual activity by its misguided advocates and enablers.”
Those are just two examples of where your statement will not be fully acceptable as a statement that gives the point of view of ALL Christian people. You represent a minority Christian viewpoint.
I only read the first sentance of your reply. It doesn’t matter if a person is born with homosexual tendencies and you’re not going to be able to prove that no matte how many studies you trot out because I could trot out juist as many to the contrary. The fact is that sexual activity outside of one man and one woman in the bonds of matrimony is always sinful without any exceptions whatsoever.
Deal with it.
Try reading the full comment, Joe. I’d be happy to exchange comments with you that are civil on this topic.
Try it. Quite frankly, I think you CAN be civil and I think you hide your intelligence underneath a lot of bluster so that people get the wrong impression of you MOST OF THE TIME.
The ability to conduct civil discussion among people who have different opinions is a way to measure their maturity, Joe.
QUOTE the point of view of ALL Christian people END QUOTE
In fairness, I think Joe was referring to “ALL true Christians who believe the Bible.”
Of course, to say that includes ALL people who use and/or misuse the title Christian, then I’d slap Joe silly for making such an erroneous statement.
The word “christian” no longer can be used as a definitive term meaning true followers of Christ. We are in the “post Christian era” in which terms such as “christian” require clarification.
BTW, Joe, I DO agree that most Christian people see ‘activity’ as sinful in that it violates the natural order.
But a ‘tendency’ is not the same as ‘acting on that tendency’, in the minds of many Christian people. They believe that people with ‘those tendencies’ did not choose them, and are burdened by a special cross and must not act on those unnatural tendencies. And they believe that the harassment of these burdened individuals is profoundly unjust and unChristian.
Wrong. The “tendency” to do something sinful is equally sinful. A person who feels sexual attraction to a member of their own sex has a desire to do something sinful. Jesus said holding anger in your heart is the spritual equivilant of murder. He said lusting in your heart is the spiritual equivilant of commiting adultery.
Therefore, if a person has a sexual attraction toward members of their own sex they have sinned regardless of whether they act on it or not.
Suck it up and deal with it.
JOE, I respectfully disagree.
(that’s an example of a civil ‘reply’ comment)
Well, when what you think is contradicted by what the bible says your agreement or disagreement is pretty irrelevant.
(that’s an example of a truthful reply comment)
Joe,
First, I agree that honosexual acts are an act of rebellion against God, or, in other words, a sin. Second, I agree that homosexual lust–lust being defined as intentionally advancing one’s desires, whether manifested physically (through actions calculated to fulfill that lust) or mentally (as in willfully entertaining thoughts fanticizing its fulfillment)–is a willful rebellion, i.e., a sin. However, I am not convinced that sexual attraction is the same as “lust,” whether its object is homosexual or heterosexual. We, as human beings, feel sexual attraction at times. If I see a beautiful woman, I may feel that attraction (heck, millions, possibly billions, of dollars are spent every year using sexual attraction to sell everything from beer to cigarettes to jeans to insurancee), but it is the willful acting upon that attraction that makes it a sin. Or so it seems to me, anyway. I would listen to any Bible verses that say otherwise (and frankly, what you have quoted so far do not).
I will also say that I am uncertain about the nature and origins of homosexuality. It is attractive to postulate that it is a choice. I have known homosexual persons in whose life I can see brokenness in deaing with someone of the opposite sex, and perhaps in those instances it is a sort-of a choice for them. But for others, I am less sure. I know that in my life, I never made a decision to be heterosexual rather than homosexual; I simply started noticing that girls were different, and I liked the difference.
John
QUOTE Or so it seems to me, anyway. I would listen to any Bible verses that say otherwise (and frankly, what you have quoted so far do not). END QUOTE
Try the Sermon on the Mount.
QUOTE I never made a decision to be heterosexual END QUOTE
That’s because heterosexuality is natural and not a rebellion against God. God programmed us to be heterosexual. Homosexuality for any reason and all reasons is “sin” because it is rebellion against God’s creative design.
Before you ask for a Scripture: Romans 1.
So what about men or women who lust after members of the opposite sex and don’t act on it? Is that particular sexual sin okay?
The problem with this ruling is that it makes sexual orientation a protected class. Couple the protected class status with the hate crimes bill and you will get a pastor calling homosexuality a sin “hate speech”. The state now gives licenses to ministers to marry – you won’t be allowed to discriminate against a protected class. In LA this past year a man didn’t want to marry a white woman/black man which is of course wrong but it shows you that once you make a protected class the state has the authority to intervene and protect that class. At government schools children will be taught that homosexualty is acceptable and tolerance is expected. Once sexual orientation is made a protected class we will lose relgious freedoms because the state will protected the protected class over the rights of relgion. This is a domino that coupled with the hate crimes bill could have huge impact on what churches can deal with homesexuals.
Now SCOTUS is going to rule that marriage is has been decided by the states so that’s going to be bad for the gays but the schools are already indoctrinating kids about tolerance and not being bigots so the time is coming.
Bess,
“In LA this past year a man didn’t want to marry a white woman/black man which is of course wrong. . . .”
Are you saying interracial marriage is wrong (sinful?), or did I read you incorrectly?
John
Sorry! I wasn’t clear. It was wrong of the Justice of the peace to not marry them not the inter-racial marriage. The Justice of the Peace lost his license. I think it’s an axample of how homosexuals will use their protected status as they compare gay marriage to inter-racial marriage ie Loving v. Virginia.
We are born sinners genetically disposed to these choices via the Garden. If there is a “form” of Christianity that thinks that homosexuality is not a sin, they are blatantly twisting Scripture. Homosexuality isn’t a “gray area” of interpretation.
Rick Warren was once asked on the Today Show if he would still say that homosexuality is a sin if science proved that it was a biological trait that people are born with.
Rick rightly replied, “Yes because I’m biologically disposed to have sex with every women I see but that doesn’t make it healthy for myself or society.”
As to the tendency to commit any particular sin, the Bible refers to it as:
lusts of their hearts (Romans 1:24)
dishonorable passions (Romans 1:26)
sinful passions (Romans 7:5)
passions of our flesh (Ephesians 2:3)
worldly passions (Titus 2:12)
passions of your former ignorance (1 Peter 1:14)
the lust of defiling passion (2 Peter 2:10)
passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul (1 Peter 2:11)
sensual passions of the flesh (2 Peter 2:18)
ungodly passions (Jude 1:18)
Just to name a few.
Also note that once a class is given protected status that means no discrination in hiring and you will have to provide all the same benefits to gay couples as you give to straight couples. Anyone know of a church who can say sorry black person you are not allowed a job or membership in our church because our religion says so?
Christian adoption agencies can refuse gay couples adoption – already happened in DC with the Catholic church.
DOMA and don’t ask don’t tell won’t have to repealed if this is upheld. Justice Kennedy is the most powerful man in the country right now. Would it be a “propaganda” prayer to pray for Justice Kennedy to get this one right? LOL
Judge Walker is not accurate in one respect:
“Judge Walker, in his decision, including the misstatement that the “Catholic Church views homosexuality as sinful.”
The fact is, the Catholic Church sees homosexuality as a condition, an inclination in a person, something not intrinsically sinful. The church calls for pastoral support, not condemnation, for people with this inclination. The Catholic Church makes clear that it is homosexual activities it deems sinful, because it holds that all sexual activity belongs within marriage between a man and a woman. At the same time the Catholic Church opposes all unjust discrimination against gays and lesbians and abhors violence against them. ”
from: http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2010/08/law-is-ass.html
P.S. sorry for word ” _ss :in site reference, but the bishops are quoting Dickens.
All people are sinners! They born with a sin nature. Thus, they are sinners facing the just punishment of God.
L’s, No matter what the Catholic Church calls the Sodomite lifestyle now or what the SBC may come to call it later of she falls to a depraved theology; The Bible will always call it a sin and an abomination.
Unjust violence against any living soul has always been condemned by the Bible.
Therefore, I think I will stick with the Bible and let the Devil take the hindmost parts with what the RCC or any theological dwarves in the SBC folk say about it.
Some people have “inclinations” toward pedophilia or inclinations toward bestialty or cannilbalism.
Maybe these seminary students can discuss the implications to total depravity
that “inclinations” suggest. Homosexuals are only a little bit “sick” would seem to be rather pelegian.
QUOTE The fact is, the Catholic Church sees homosexuality as a condition, an inclination in a person, something not intrinsically sinful END QUOTE
Thanks for reminding me why I am not Catholic. Jesus went to great lengths in His Great Sermon to point out that the greatest sins are in our “inclinations,” not our actions.
I might point out that no deed ever has taken place that was not first an “inclination.” Sin precedes behavior; it is not a result of behavior. That’s what the Bible teaches.
We need to lay aside the teachings of men, no matter high high a hat they wear.
Jesus was tempted by Satan.
But He did not sin.
Jesus did not have a sin nature. Jesus did not desire to sin. He was tempted as we are but in the way that we are because we are born sinners and want to rebel against the will of God. When we are tempted it’s because there is a sin that we want to commit. Jesus was tempted by being presented with the opportunity to sin so as to demonstrate His sinlessness.
That little thing called “hermenutics” will get you every time.
He was tempted as we are but NOTin the way that we are because we are born sinners and want to rebel against the will of God.
Correction to my above comment.
Thing is, JOE, that I did NOT make the statement that Jesus had a ‘sin nature’.
That little thing about accuracy will get you every time.
The proclivity to being tempted is part of our human nature.
Christ was born fully God and fully Man.
Therefore He was subject to temptations as we are.
The point is that ‘being tempted’ in itself is not a sin.
There are many people who, in their own honest perception, have been born with an unchosen gay-orientation,
but who have never engaged in homosexual behavior, and live celibate lives. These people are not considered sinners by most Christians.
Are they tempted to sin in many ways?
We all are, as Christ Himself was tempted.
But all of us can know, through the example of Our Lord,
that we are not forced into sin by those temptations, and that those temptations are a kind of cross that we all bear in this life.
This post asks ‘how should we then’ respond to Prop 8.
We could START by taking a good look at where we want found on the continuum between
Point A: the Church of What’s Happening Now (no limits), and
Point B: Westboro Baptist Church
Both extremes are considered ‘demonic’ by Orthodox Christian people.
Somewhere in the middle, we will find the example of Our Lord waiting for us, as He cared for the outcasts of His day, when He was among us.
Might be good to start with this ‘response’ goal:
to keep our focus on Him in how we respond to all matters, and with all people. He’s the anchor, you know.
QUOTE Are they tempted to sin in many ways?
We all are, as Christ Himself was tempted END QUOTE
I really wonder if you really believe the Bible, or only refer to it when you think it supports your crusade?
You mention how “Christ was tempted and it was not counted as sin.” Like Satan, you manage to quote half a truth and present as the whole truth.
Read the Bible: Christ was tempted — and over came the temptation. He was not continually struggling with the same temptation over and over again — which is indicative of man’s total depravity.
You use the fact that Christ was “tempted” as a free pass for persons to ignore “bringing every thought captive.” What you fail to mention is that MANY person’s do in fact overcome the inclination toward homosexual behavior through the blood of Jesus Christ and empowering presence of the Holy Spirit.
Your post would lead someone to believe that overcoming a “besetting sin” (Heb. 12) is not possible even thought the Word commands that we do so.
Your post perpetuates the myth of helpless victimization. I want persons to know that God can bring about an absolute and complete victory of homosexual inclinations.
Somehow, I’m not convinced that the point you refer to as the “middle” is the same one a conservative, Bible-believing, true believer would consider the middle.
If every human inherited sinfulness by virtue of being descended from Adam and Eve–then you are right that we are born sinners. But Joe, doesn’t that paint you into a theological corner? I mean, if all human beings inherit sinfulness, then Jesus must not have been truely, completely human, as we know He was without sin. And if He never experienced temptation–not the way we are–how can He possibly know what it means to be human, much less to be an effective sacrifice for humanity?
If, on the other hand, humans are born with the tendency or propensity (or whatever term you prefer) toward sin, then Jesus still could have been completely human (as orthodoxy has held for close to 2000 years). But if He was completely human, how could He not have been tempted exactly as are you and I? I suggest the difference is that He did not yield to temptation. From your statement that “He was tempted as we are but NOTin the way that we are,” what do you do with Hebrews 4:15, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin”?
Joe, you seem to be emphasizing the divinity of Jesus at the cost of His humanity.
John
No, because sinfullness is passed down from father to child. Jesus had no human father therefore He did not inherit a sin nature.
Joe,
You said, “No, because sinfullness is passed down from father to child. Jesus had no human father therefore He did not inherit a sin nature.” How can this not mean you subscribe to the docrtrine of immaculate conception? That doctrine, as you surely know is a Catholic doctrine. And can you give me some Bible references for it please?
John
No, the doctrine of the immaculate conception says that Mary was kept sinless. I never said she wasn’t sinless. As to the fact that we are all born sinners, Romans 5:12-14.
Well, Joe, I’m Baptist not Catholic, so I’m not an authority here. I believe the Catholics do believe in the perpetual viginity of Mary, but is that a necessary part of a doctrine of immaculate CONCEPTION? But let’s say, for sake of argument, that it is. Would you very much mind sharing some Scripture that proves sinfulness is transmitted through one’s father? But since you concede we are all born sinners (“As to the fact that we are all born sinners, Romans 5:12-14″), if by that, you mean that we have already sinned as we exit the womb, well, didn’t Jesus exit the womb? Really Joe–haven’t you painted yourself into an exegetical corner that you are desperately trying to get out of? All you need to do is to admit that in your zeal, you misspoke, that you made a mistake.
John
I think Jesus had some feelings for Mary Magdalene that he wouldn’t feel comfortable telling his Mother about, especially if his Mother was a Virgin.
How could you begin the conversation?
Sorry Stan, #8. I didn’t read your post on sin above. Consider mine a footnote to yours.
Gladly.
The fact that it was district court judge and not a superior court judge makes m think that the distrit courts are a partof that US Federal Corporation that the Congress passed in 1871 which has since then slowly but surely usurped all the prerogatives of the Constitutional government and courts. When the process is finished, the one world church and government will step forth (could it be the pope and his crowd with all of the world admitted to te church) with the real dictators behind the scenes, contrlling every thing with money and thugs. O yes, they have computers that perhaps 20 + years ago could do 60-90,000 bits of info. for every last person on the face of the earth….and now it is probably 500,000 bits of info. per person per every person on the face of the earth – all in one second. Do they have a computerized plan for the life of every person? and a computerized plan to handle practically every situation in every area of life? And is their aim to reduce the population of the earth to perhaps 1-2 billion and the other 4-5 billions are cosuming thei resources (who said the resouces was theirs? And are all the others “USELESS EATERS” as H.G. Wells called them in his OPEN CONSPIRACY? And has any one read Carroll Quigley’s TRAGEDY AND HOPE and his THE ANGLO AMERICAN ESTABLISMENT which gives the last will and testament of Cecil Rhodes whom C.S. Lewis named as a conspirator in his supposedly fictional list of conspiratos in his THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH? O yes, why did Quigley list the principles which the pluralists who run the world oppose as Deterinism and refer to Calvinism? And we wonder why Sovereign Grace almost died out among Southern Baptists? Did the consirators send in infiltrators in the early 1800s on bot sides of the issue, to polarize and split and more later one, like knock ou he Bible with stupid French Infidelity masquerading as holy under the rubric of HIGHER CRITICISM? O yes, French Infidelity was the views of those known as the Philosophes of the French Enlightenmen, joined with a few oftheir English cousins like Tom Paine, David Hume, and a few others.
Dr. Willimham, I’m afraid you’re going to get dismissed as a conspiricy theorist no matter the truth in your statement. This ruling should send a meassge to those who think that the “progressive” worldview is somehow closer to Christ’s message that it is absolutely not. 1. Your Christian world view is not welcome at the ballot box – keep that religion to yourself so eventually the progressives can stamp out these fairy tales. 2. The progressive world view is diametrically opposed to that of a Christian World view. Progressives believe that all men are basically good and if you stamp poverty and religious bigotry we can reach utopia. Every policy put forth by progressives from hate crimes to health care is based in the world view that man is good and if we just make things “fair” heaven on earth is attainable. We wouldn’t need borders and separate governments if only we make life fair, redistribute resources and stamp out intolerance in the form of religious “bigotry”
QUOTE that all men are basically good END QUOTE
Great point. This is where liberalism (progressivism) goes off track right from the heart of the matter. Nothing good ever came of a train being on the wrong track. It always leads to disaster.
I’d like to interject that I, for one, am not involved in the “Prop 8″ political game because I think we in California are going to be able to affect real and lasting change — as in seeing San Francisco become a bastion of Christian virtue. I’m still open to praying toward that end, but I must confess it stretches the limits of my mustard seed.
My goal is to “mitigate” the damage caused to families and society in general because of the damage caused by homosexual behavior and the anti-Christian stance of the pro-homosexual lobby. My goal is to simply hold open the door of the Ark so a few more people can get saved before God’s judgment falls in a heavy way upon our society.
I think this is where my historic premillennialism influences my political activism. I see the tide of sin rising steadily as we near the End of Days. I believe those days are near, so I’m in triage mode.
I will be deeply saddened but not surprised when homosexual marriage is given the support of the Supreme Court — which by the way — was never intended to be the final arbiter of legislative issues in the United States. The Court was designed to be the weakest branch. My, how the tree of our government has been twisted out of shape.
Amen and God bless. It gets incredibely frustrating trying to talk to Christians who think there is anything right in “progressivism”. There can nothing right when at the very root of the tree it’s the belief that there is no God, there is no evil and all the bad things in the world can be eradicated by simply tolerating “differences” spreading around the earth’s resources. Some Christians think a Christian shouldn’t be involved in anything political. Well the time is coming when progressivism will lead to a place where you have no rights in the education or religious upbringing of your children (see UN Treaty on children which Obama wants to ratify). and the hate crimes bill is set so that once homosexuals become a protected class there calling homosexualty a sin will be a crime. At point do Christians get involved.
Someone please answer the question is a prayer that Justice Stevens make the “right” decision a propaganda prayer?
When I speak about ‘temptation’, I think about this definition of the word from the teachings of my faith:
“Temptation is not in itself sin. As long as there is no consent of the will, there is no sin. The very essence of sin in any grade is that it should be a deliberate act of the human will.”
We do have something called ‘an occasion of sin’ which is where a person chooses to place themselves into a position where they will be tempted. That is something that is forbidden to do in my religion. It is also forbidden to place another person into a situation where they may be tempted to sin.
Yes, Catholicism is VERY different, isn’t it?
Very much. It is not a Church for people who thrive on cursing ‘others’ to hell. That is not our way.
QUOTE Yes, Catholicism is VERY different, isn’t it? END QUOTE
No truer comment may have been spoken on this blog.
There is truth, and there is the tradition of men. There is words of life and there are words that bring death. There is a narrow way to salvation and a broad gate of error that leads to damnation.
As a footnote, one might want to investigate the history of the Catholic church to evaluate the statement, “cursing others to hell. That is not our way.” Oh, really?
It is not a Church for people who thrive on cursing ‘others’ to hell. That is not our way.
Bull malarkey.
After the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church held a little meeting called “The Council of Trent”. I’ve thrown things from that in your face before, but just in case you need a reminder:
They declared that anayone who did not accpet that the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper are actually transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ is anathema.
They declared that anyone who said that the sacraments are not needed for salvation is anathema.
They declared that anyone who did not recognize the Pope’s authority and the authority of church tradition to be equal with scripture to be anathema.
Now, why don’t you google the word “anathema” and see what it means and come around and tell us whether the Catholic Church ahs ever condemned anyone to hell.
You may apologize anytime you’re ready.
Joe, I’m not a “history” guy but wasn’t there something called the Inquisition. I believe it was an outreach program of the Catholic Church, that some say was rather “harsh and unloving.”
I’m not sure if Christiane was advocating “for” or “against” their (the Catholic Church’s) way?
Thank God for the Reformation.
SSBN
L’s doesn’t deal much with facts. She has a one track mind–”All biblical conservatives are evil and unloving”. She has a hatred for all things conservative that is beyond belief. Of course, the bible tells us that those who reject the gospel have just a natural mind and cannot understand the things of God because they are alien to them. L’s is exhibit A of that fact.
No apology forth-coming.
My Church is not at all like the Westboro Church.
I bet yours isn’t either.
But you can speak about that, if you like.
So you’re going to maintain that your church has never pronounced someone as dammed to hell? Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.
“My goal is to simply hold open the door of the Ark so a few more people can get saved before God’s judgment falls in a heavy way upon our society….so I’m in triage mode.”
God’s speed my brother. May God increase your tribe. May the whole SBC and the entirety of the Bride of Christ see the simple truth of your statement.
It is my strong contention that the lax position our culture has taken relating to the Sodomite lifestyle has contributed greatly to the increase of child abuse we as a nation and we as Christ followers have witnessed in these past few decades.
Through this blog and over the last 23 years I notice how the homosexual propaganda machine has been effective. We now have so-called Christians debating whether or not homosexual thoughts, proclivities, inclinations are sin.
I remember serving in the San Fran area when the AIDS epidemic burst on the scene. From the get-go the homosexual lobby began the propaganda campaign that “AIDS isn’t only a gay disease.” Technically, that was factual. A small percentage of innocent people contracted AIDS through bad blood transfusions. Also, some heterosexual drug addicts contracted the disease, as well as heterosexual women having sex with bisexual men. But the fact was in the 80;s: over 9 out 10 cases of AIDS were the direct result of barbarian homosexual practices.
The homosexual propaganda campaign slowed laws and practices, or completely stopped them, that would have saved millions of innocent lives.
I suspect that he current homosexual propaganda campaign for gay marriage will be equally effective and equally damaging to society. And, right at the front of the gay parade will be mushy-headed, pseudo-Christians debating whether homosexuality is a sin.
I’ll continue to speak against such political correctness — as I did in San Fran in the 80′s. Homosexuality is a sin and only when recognized as such and repented of completely can there ever be healing and wholeness.
The debate has gone from “we just want to come out of the closet” to “civil unions” and now being gay is the same thing as race – a civil rights issue.
If I were black, that would severly tick me off to the point of cussing out loud. Heck, I’m offended by the comparison anyway.
Bess, I think you grasped what I was trying to get at. We, the true church, must speak boldly the truth of God’s Word even though we will be condemned (even by mushy-headed christians–little “c”).
Most of the people (maybe all) blogging on this thread have never been within a 1000 miles of a bath house in San Francisco. What most people know about homosexuality they have learned by watching “Will and Grace.”
Let me tell you . . . the real homosexual world looks much uglier and smells much worse. Pick up any book on homosexual sexual behavior (ADULTS ONLY) and see if you can read it without being both disgusted and sickened. Nobody wants to tell that story because it is not “politically correct.”
Having dealt with young boys who were trapped in that lifestyle in San Francisco, I’m not near as sympathetic to homosexual civil rights. Quite frankly, I know that the real homosexual world is anything but CIVIL.
Argue if you will, but that will not change the documented facts.
My point is: love the homosexual, but deplore homosexuality in the strongest of terms — like “abomination.”
Well said. That is why we should refer to such as what it is: Sodomite Lifestyle. There is nothing Gay about it.
And what the immature little c Christians refuse to recognize is that the government is aiding and abetting in teaching these pervasities to the children in the government run schools. Look up Kevin Jennings Obama’s school diversity czar and see some of the suggested reading materials to teach “diversity” and help young children how to “explore” their sexuality. By the time some of these people wake up to what’s going on in the goverment it will be too late to turn back the tide. Heaven forbid something happens to one of the conservative supreme court justices – I can’t imagine the damage done to the country or how we could ever set it right again. The same people today who tell you that they don’t want to take away you religious freedom are the same people few years ago saying “oh no we don’t want gay marriage”. Just go tona liberal blog and read the rhetoric – I read a recent post where the liberals thought anyone working in any public situation should not be allowed to wear a cross necklace because that’s imposing religion on them . Or how bou the college students who got kicked out of programs for psychology degrees because as Christians they were not “tolerant” of homosexual. Or Martha Coakley saying during her senate campaign that you shouldn’t work at hospitals if you’re not willing to give out abortion pills. It barely under the service in this country this need to destroy Christianity. The original poster spoke of the frustration of being told to keep your Christian worldview away from the polls. Hello! You’re just now getting that message?
Did God call us to reach the lost or to govern the world?
All this talk to losing our country and stuff need to remember this:
Christianity, true Christianity, flourishes when it’s persecuted.
In America, we’re all up in arms about not being able to up a couple of crosses when others are praying that they make it through the day alive in other countries.
Seems to me that the “Little C” Christians are here in the states…
Bess, there is little hope for a nation that cannot see the simple truth you express in this post.
your comment is very remarkable:
. . . especially that part about
‘propaganda’ and ‘technically factual’
Goodness.
Have I fallen down the rabbit hole again ?
I shouldn’t be at all surprised.
SSBN,
I suppose I am one of your “so-called Christians” since I dared question whether “homosexual thoughts, proclivities, inclinations are sin.” Fortunantly, my relationship with Christ is not dependant upon your approval, though I do wonder how Matthew 7:12 fits into your accusation. Frankly, I do not appreciate this and find it both detrimental to any sort of dialogue and personally insulting.
Also, I find this all very odd, given that I AGREE that homosexual actions are sinful, and I AGREE that anything done to further a felt or perceived temptation –whether done physically or mentally–is sinful, in keeping with Jesus’ statements in the Sermon on the Mopunt and elsewhere. Furthermore, I AGREE that homosexual marriage or even “civil unions” are an abomination. But can you show me, from the Bible, where an involuntary feeling of sexual attraction or stimulation (be it with a homosexual or a heterosexual object) is tanamount to what Jesus called “lust”? Even if I concede that homosexuality is a willful decision (and I have not argued against this, I have simply said I am unsure), once the “decision” is made, sexual attraction/stimulation in that direction would become involuntary or second nature–unless one postulates that it is a conscious decision in each and every instance. Is this what you are suggesting? SSBN, I am simply trying to have a dialogue with you and understand your position, not to trade insults with you.
John
John, I think going back over the last few threads you mentioned being offended about a half-dozen times.
As far as Matthew 7:12: I fully agree with you. I fully wish that if I were participating in such a grievous sin as homosexuality that those who truly love me would challenge my behavior and forcefully argue I should repent. So, I guess we agree on Matthew 7:12.
In regard to the “reprobate mind” that at some point sins “against conscience,” I don’t understand why you say the opposite of what Paul says. Paul does not say that when our heart becomes so hardened it no longer consciously decides to continue in a sin, that somehow that makes it any less of a sin. I may not understand what you are saying, but that’s what it looks like to me.
And, you already have defined what lust is: “an involuntary feeling of sexual attraction or stimulation.” That may not be a “theologically complete definition, but it’s close.” I think you are hiding behind the word, “involuntary” using it to mean, “therefore without any culpablility or guilt.” The Bible does not make the distinction between voluntary sin and involuntary sin in regard to “culpablity” or guild before God.
Now, if you can show me in the Bible (except for persons who have not yet reached the age of accountability) where there is something you call and “involuntary sin that is therefore without guilt or culpability,” I’d be interested in taking a look. I don’t know of any such verse.
In regard to your direct question, here is one verse that talks about the exhortation to complete holiness even in our thought lives: 2Cor. 10:5.
My desire is not simply to offer “an opinion,” but to offer a biblically informed opinion and to receive the same. Otherwise blogging would be a waste of time for me.
But, I think you are a bit hasty in asserting that I somehow indicated you needed “my approval” for you to be in a right standing with Jesus. I never said or indicated anything of the type. You must have me confused with someone else.
Well SSBN you are right that I have felt insulted several times by your words, I do feel that you should throttle back on the characterizations such as “so-called Christians” because there may be disagreements in areas you feel should not even be discussed, and that you owe me an apology as I disagree and am a Christian, not a “so-called Christian.” Since you neither seem to be willing to scale back nor apologize, I must do two things. First, I must tentatively conclude that you are comfortable with what you say about me and/or others in these conversations–even though I have, in your words, challenged your behavior and forcefully argued that you should repent. Second, I will have to live with it; I think I can manage that pretty easily, not that I need your approval or affirmation to do so. And a bonus third is that I will, in the future, refrain from mentioning feeling offended or insulted by you.
Actually, 2 Cor 10:5 is exactly the sort of distinction between lust and non-lust for which I am arguing. My perspective is that, usually based on visual stimuli, one is sometimes provoked sexually in a way that is not initially voluntary, and hence is outside of our control or ability to “take captive” at least immediately. If I see a beautiful, young woman walk by, especially if she acts or is dressed provocatively, I am going to be sexually stimulated to one degree or another. I am, after all, a reasonably healthy male with a reasonable sex drive. I would argue, however, that is not lust; it becomes lust if I do one of two things: if I try to engage this woman in conversation, with the end result being sex–whether I am successful or not, I am guilty of lust. And if I engage in some fantasy over this woman, and allow it to play out in my mind to some, to any, degree, I am equally guilty of lust, and the adultary of which Jesus spoke in Matthew 5:28. If I do either of those–especiually the last–I have failed to take my thioughts captive to make it obedient to Jesus. But–and if I misunderstood you, please correct me–you seem to be arguing that the initial involuntary sexual stimulation/suggestion I feel is equally lustful, whether it is me in a heterosexual fashion, or someone else in a homosexual lifestyle. Is this a correct summary of your position? It would seem to me that Paul, since he speaks of thoughts, is saying those things over which we have control, not the involuntary impulses we may feel. From your perspective, is having any sexual desire explicitly a sin? That is what I get from you; please correct me if I have misunderstood you.
John
Christiane,
For the record: How many RC priests are sodomites? How many nuns are lesbians? How many altar boys have been molested by your sodomite priests?
Ouch!
SSBN, no ‘ouch’
questions need to be asked
people need to vent
communication and dialogue are best kept open
it’s the people who try to shut others up that you have to watch for, because their motives are often hidden from view,
just as they wish others to ‘keep silent’
about issues that are painful to everyone
No ‘ouch’, please: people need to talk about this issue,
in spite of snarky comments,
and inability to understand each other,
and confusion about terminology . . . some other attitude is needed now, I think.
Hi JAKE BARKER,
I found this site for you and it addresses some of your questions, but I cannot vouch for its accuracy. It does quote the author Ann Coulter, who is a conservative Christian, among many other commentators of different backgrounds.
There is an extensive reading list at the end of that site, but I also cannot vouch for accuracy there either.
Here is the site:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex8.htm
JAKE,
excuse me, it doesn’t address your particular questions, so I am unable to help you with those questions
have a wonderful Lord’s Day and I hope you enjoyed the Evensong excerpt from the beautiful Psalm 27
My favorite part of that Psalm is this:
“I am still confident of this:
I will see the goodness of the LORD
in the land of the living. ”
Evensong
http://www.stnicholasmarin.org/cd_contents/mp3/turn_not_thy_face.mp3
Any time any sinful thought comes into my mind, as often happens, I have no choice (as a believer) but to do what the Bible says. Repent, confess, be restored. I’ve never had that first twinge of attraction to any other man, but were that ever to happen, I’d have to do that same thing.
Just like my secret envy of my neighbor who bought a new car, my secret lust when some inadequately-clothed woman crosses my path, or any other time I know what to do or not do, and fail.
My personal story: my first encounter, face-to-face, with Jesus, came via an HIV-positive man named Eric Solar, one of the sweetest-spirited Christian guys I ever met. That was 20 years ago and he has since died. He was a testimony, in my opinion, of the ugliness of homosexuality. Of the sin of Sodom. And also the grace of God.
How many cities does God have to rain fire & brimstone down upon, before we get the message?
“He was a testimony, in my opinion, of the ugliness of homosexuality. Of the sin of Sodom. And also the grace of God.”
I think you saw this man as Christ would have you to see him,
as a real person, not just a stereotype. And you described him with real Christian compassion.
You are a good man, Bob Cleveland.
Christiane,
No, but God is a good God.
Bob,
I see you got where you were going when you left. Thanks again. “She” looked forward to that all day.
So did “she”. And thanks, to you, too.
We’ll do this again.
So Christiane,
I copied this from one of the links you posted
“Barbara Walters of ABC’s 20/20 has stated that “…the [Catholic] church has made dramatic changes in the last decade in the way it addresses sexual issues in seminary. Instead of denying or repressing sexual desire, seminaries now use progressive psychology to help men deal openly with the once taboo topics of sexual attraction as well as homosexuality. Seminarians, for example, learn how to channel their sexual energy, and that it is alright to embrace their homosexual orientation.”
If this is true then your dear RC is not only heretical it is also apostate. Perhaps CB is right about you.
Hi JAKE BARKER,
Apparently you did not notice this ‘disclaimer’:
‘I found this site for you and it addresses some of your questions, but I CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY.
It does quote the author Ann Coulter, who is a conservative Christian, among many other commentators of different backgrounds.
There is an extensive reading list at the end of that site,
but I ALSO CANNOT VOUCH FOR ACCURACY there either.”
C.B. is entitled to his opinions and I support his right to express them, as long as he does so in a civil manner. I may or may not share those opinions.
I AM most certainly a Catholic, Jake Barker,
of the Roman rite.
Let me hunt over on Wade’s blog and I will give you a site to a post about why I started blogging on Baptist blogs. You will find the whole gang shows up in the comment stream there, including C.B. and dear Joe Blackmon. For some reason, I think you will be amused and entertained
JAKE, here is that site you might like to look at:
http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2009/03/southern-baptist-pastor-encouraged-by.html
correction:
the only reference to ‘C.B.’ on that comment stream is that someone says ‘hi C.B.’ in their comment, so unless C.B. posted a comment anonymously, I may not assume that he was actually a commentator.
Hello Jake,
Good to see you around here.
About what, might I ask, am I perhaps right?
You are going to have Gay marriage because this is a secular issue with spiritual consequences.
Now, for those of you who wish to attack homosexuals need to remind yourself that you also have to deal harshly with affairs, adultery, pornography, and your basic sex out of wedlock. But, since homosexuality is the favorite scapegoat sin to go after and persecute, you’ll find that many other sexual sins are running rampant through your congregations.
We can’t keep going after any and all homosexuals unless we also police our own sexual sins.
But hey, we’ll kick out any church that reaches out to homosexuals…
I think you have nailed it: the utter hypocrisy of fundamentalists choosing ‘scapegoat’ sins and then pointing the finger,
while their own ‘pet’ sins are placed to the side.
It’s that kind of hypocrisy that Christ came to expose.
And when He did, they crucified Him. But He exposed it anyway.
As will those who truly follow Him.
L’s,
What are the “pet” sins of those you define as fundamentalists?
Hi C.B.
“pet” sins?
the ‘I thank you Lord that I am not like that other sinner’ sins.
(the ones we don’t consider as ‘bad’ as scapegoat sins)
I’m glad you brought that question up. Now I get to use one of my all-time favorite quotes:
“This thought should keep us humble.
We are sinners, but we do not know how great.
He alone knows Who died for our sins. ”
John Henry Newman
When you think about, C.B., the more people sit ‘in judgment’ on others, the more they don’t understand the meaning of John Henry Newman’s quote. If any of this ‘got through to you’, I’m glad.
If it didn’t right now, some day you will come to understand it.
L’s,
The Newman quote condemns your theology not mine.
C.B.
The quote is for all of us who see our own ‘sin’ as less major than another person’s sin. When we ‘magnify’ their sin, we tend to overlook the weight of our own sins on the suffering Lord.
It doesn’t work, does it?
We all do ‘the pointing of the finger’ and we all sit in judgment on the ‘others’, when what we really need is to kneel and say a ‘mea culpa’ at the foot of the Cross. So none of us gets past Newman’s quote without some heavy reflection, is we understand its meaning, C.B.
CB,
You are always raggin’ on Christiane about her need for Biblical salvation. Now as I understand it, RC’s see infant baptisim followed by confirmation classes at a certain age mean that one is their version of saved. However Scripture clearly states that Biblical salvation is only for a repentant person. If Christiane believes that one can continue on in a sin, in this case sodomy, as it appears she does, then maybe she does need to revaluate her spiritual condition.
Jake,
I know Roman Catholics who are Christ Followers. One of the best preachers of the gospel I ever heard was a renegade Catholic Priest in VA.
Nonetheless, L’s does not embrace the biblical gospel as presented by our Lord Jesus. Therefore, she is lost and without hope unless she repents and believes the biblical gospel.
What she is saying is that we need to see our sin and quit having pet sins. As for her salvation. I believe L’s is a true born again Christian. I have said this, I still believe it. And judging by all of your actions and your slam dunk giving of the “Gospel” like you have a machine gun in your hands, I would say in living that life, she has outdone some of you in spades. You all could learn from her.
She is not saying that this person should keep on sinning, but how do you think a non-believer is going to behave and think. They need Christ. That is the only thing that will change them. A leopard cannot change its spots according to scripture, and beginning with trying to change his spots gets you nowhere. Even if the person did for a time, he is still lost and heading for hell. But by golly we Christians sure feel a lot more comfort for him/her having changed them. But they are still headed for hell. Also all sin is sin. All sin is against God not just pet sins like abortion or being gay. We sin. That is what I understand L’s point to be. And again, she’s absolutely right.
Debbie,
I don’t care what you think, L’s does not know the Christ of the biblical gospel. She uses you to promote her agenda, but you just do not see it.
CB: you don’t want to know what I see, it might become a post.
CB, that is always a problem when dealing with Catholicism — how do you reconcile what someone says they believe about Christ and their practice of pagan rituals that must certainly break Christ’s heart, such the near-worship of the Pope.
Like I said L’s, the Newman quote condemns your theology, not mine.
L’s, you adhere to a works theology of justification, Canon Law and the Seven Sacraments. Within your theology there are sins of measurable difference relating to eternal penalty. Surely you are aware of this, even though you are only a nominal Roman Catholic at best.
On the other hand, the theology of which I embrace declares that any and all sin separates man from God equally. Therefore the Atonement of Christ is necessary to ransom me no matter the depth of sin my depraved nature has taken me.
The penalty of all sin is the same. The consequences of sin during this mortal life differ in magnitude.
Therefore, the Newman quote condemns your theology, not mine.
And you adhere to a machine gun giving of the Gospel CB so maybe you are both even. L’s gives the Gospel quite proficiently and adequately, in fact I have gotten in deep before so here it goes, she understands it much better than even you do.
Debbie,
I really don’t want to burn you down tonight. You were baked to a crisp last night and you probably deserved it, but I took up for you anyway. Why, I don’t really know. I guess I am just stupid sometimes.
Oh please. She couldn’t articulate the gospel if your life depended on it–which by the way would be perfectly ok with me.
CB: Baked to a crisp? by Joe? Hardly.
I thank you for taking up for me, but if you believe that this is a loyalty deal you would be wrong. You are wrong when you speak to L’s the way you do, in fact I am not sure but it could be sin. I would think so since God looks on the heart and knows our motives. I am not going to be silent because you did a nice thing for me, albeit I won’t say I am not grateful that you did. I noticed. But CB that does not tie me to be loyal to you no matter what. That is seems to be the SBC way of doing things, but it’s not Biblical and it’s certainly not justice and it’s not the way I ever do things.
Please, please . . .
don’t anybody give JOE matches to play with . . .
Debbie,
I am not Wade, MoKhan, or your new fixation, Christa Brown. I don’t expect loyalty from you. I acted on my own volition according to the code by which I live.
All I expect from you is truthfulness in what you say. Your disagreeing with me does not offend me. Steve Fox disagrees with me all the time and I have probably more respect for him than most any other person commenting on this board. He has true grit.
You, on the other hand, twist reality to suit your on agenda. How can you possibly say after reading L’s for over two years now say she is a New Testament Christian?
Look Debbie, I really don’t want to fight with you here. I always feel bad when I fight with you. It is unfair of me to fight with you.
But Debbie, I will tell you this. You need to realize you are a person in your own rights before God and no less than anybody else. You don’t need to latch on to the Wades, Christas, MoKhans, L’s and Thy Peaces of this world. You just need to come to grips with who you are in Christ and realize he is sufficient for all you will ever need and you do not have to see any other person expecting loyalty from you outside you family of the nature you exhibit and talk about here.
CB: Give me a flipping break.
How many flips do you need to take?
I tried to do just that Debbie. You are just too prideful to take it.
Charlie Brown: what is an example of real maturity ?
Snoopy: “Sometimes when I get up in the morning, I feel very peculiar. I feel like I’ve just got to bite a cat! I feel like if I don’t bite a cat before sundown, I’ll go crazy! But then I just take a deep breath and forget about it. That’s what is known as real maturity. ”
C.B., you need to take a deep breath and ‘forget about it’.
And then give Debbie a break.
You can actually make it through one day without dissing anyone and not go crazy. Take a hint from Snoopy.
L’s,
This is the real world, not a Peanuts cartoon.
Your eternal destiny is of the real world also. That is not a Peanuts cartoon either. You had better catch on to that. Your time is running out.
Joe B and CB:
You two guys really need to get off of L’s back. Is this the approach you guys always use when you are unsure of someone’s salvation?
Tom Parker,
Let’s approach this another way.
You are a college professor and have reading comprehension. We know that. Let us assume you know the gospel as God revealed it in Scripture. You have certainly been reading comments made by L’s relating to the faith.
Tom, can you honestly say you have never wondered in your mind as you read L’s various comments if she is a biblical Christian or not?
Be honest here Tom.
Tom
How can someone be a Christian and not know what the gospel is?
go look in a mirror, you’ll see the answer
Hey, your side lost. Your side lost because instead of standing for what God revealed in His word, the chose to stand on theological ground that was considerably less solid. The good guys won. The bad guys lost. Deal with it.
Wait.
My side lost? Considering the actions of your side, I’d say we won in the long run since the ends never justify the means. Besides, if your so gung ho, why are you not even a Southern Baptist? Obviously there are some doctrines you don’t agree with yet are too afraid to bring them up here. Let me guess, you like dancing or the teletubbies. My bet is on the teletubbies. Falwell will meet you at the gates and punch you in the face.
At least my side isn’t using the language of Caesar to feebly share the message of Christ…
I don’t have a problem with any SBC doctrines. The church we go to is pretty similar to John MacArthur’s church so the only huge difference between it and the SBC is Calvinism.
Further, I’m not gung ho for the SBC. I’m gung ho for truth. There was nothing done to your side that anyone needs to apologize for. Again, the reason you lost, and the proof is in the belly-aching, is because you opposed God and His inerrant word. The CR folks stood with God and for His inerrant word.
Again, deal with it.
No, you’re a shill for the CR people and they don’t even have to pay you anything. Tell me that you at least got something for your hard fought victories in the name of Patterson, et al. Signed photograph? T-shirt? Patterson bumper sticker?
God, I hope you don’t talk to others like you talk to us here. You’d set Christianity back at least twenty years. Then again, most CR crowds are all for outreaching like it’s 1959.
Tell ya the truth, bill, I just really enjoy rubbing in the faces of those who opposed the CR the fact that they lost. My hope is that the pain they endured stings them all over again when they read what I write in support of the CR. I want their mind to flash back to the moment, for instance, when they had that knot in their stomach thinking “Oh no, I’ve got to find a new church? What if we have to move out of state” or “But I’ve taught at this school for 20 years?” or “I can’t believe they treated my husband/father/friend like that”.
Because, bill, whatever they got, it’s better than they’d have got if I’d had anything to say about it.
And YOU claim the right to question other people if they’re Christian?
I must have missed the part where Jesus was hateful to the people he disagreed with while discussing things. Jesus even took a side on a debate between two of the leading rabbis of the day but didn’t start lambasting those who sided against him.
Tell me, what warped version of the scriptures are you reading and where can I get a copy?
I think Bill has a grand point about the Mirror; but I’m not sure in this case we are startin with a Christian when the person looks in the mirror.
I think…..why encourage the ….
QUOTE I must have missed the part where Jesus was hateful to the people he disagreed with while discussing things END QUOTE
There is that religious debate in which he called some folk “vipers” and “stinking crypts.” Also, he did beat a few people he disagreed with once.
I’m not taking sides, just think we might want to keep the Biblical references somewhere near accurate. Jesus was called meek which comes from an equestrian etymology for “power under control.” Not all hard words and straight talk are sinful.
Joe Blackmon:
Do you know how to articulate the Gospel? Your lack of love for people’s souls shows in the way you compose your comments to people.
What are you so angry about?
The gospel is:
God is holy and righteous. Man is a sinner and therefore has no way to approach God because of that sin. Jesus Christ, Who was God Incarnate, came and was crucified on Calvary’s cross to make atonement for sin. He was able to make atonement because He was the perfect, sinless Lamb of God. God’s wrath against my sin was satisfied by Christ’s death on the cross. He was counted guilty of my sin so that God could credit Christ’s righteousness to my account. Christ’s resurrection 3 days later proved that Christ was Who He said He was and that He’d done what He said He would.
Then JoeB how was it that WA Criswell came to screw it up so badly?
I think the commandment that some individuals among us fear the most is this one:
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. — John 13:34.”
Why do they FEAR it?
Because they know that they are accountable to Him and He Himself IS THE GOSPEL.
We find our life IN the Living Word. And there, we may be found at peace with one another.
Yeah, Tom, L’s knows the gospel. She articulates it clearly right here. Yep, no reason to doubt her salvation.
Your words are true Joe. And it was beautifully articulated, but your heart does not show the reality of this beautiful truth, and that is what skews the Gospel coming from you.
Debbie, Why not respond to Stephen’s hateful response about W.A. Criswell.
Where was I hateful about Criswell?
I didn’t call him a Skunk.
I said he was a performance artist and a Grand one at That. The White Zuit Suit and those white Buck Shoes; Gospel Burlesque at its best.
Have you googled Curtis Freeman’s Fiery Sermon and studied the footnotes about the letter Stewart Newman sent him in 68.
Look at that letter. They were contemporaries and knew each other.
I just saw Criswell twice best I remember, at Miami Beach in 67, Dallas in 74 and San Antonio in 88; three times it turns out and all at a Distance.
Jerry Vines referenced Marney yesterday in his blog tribute to Clark Pinnock.
Google that up Jefty and Have a Nice Day.
Bill:
You said to Joe B:”And YOU claim the right to question other people if they’re Christian?
I must have missed the part where Jesus was hateful to the people he disagreed with while discussing things. Jesus even took a side on a debate between two of the leading rabbis of the day but didn’t start lambasting those who sided against him.
Tell me, what warped version of the scriptures are you reading and where can I get a copy?”
Joe B and others of his kind may read the Holy Scriptures but sadly it does not penetrate their hard hearts. What a pity that are so militant towards even Christians.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }