Transgendered Member?

He probably is. I am beginning to think about hit dogs hollering.

 

Yea, something like that.

 

Strange you would appoint such at my door, and yet those that vented about perverts and other matters best left unspoken get a pass?

I have no emotional involvement with the thread.

I am responding to folks as they post, by taking as I stated a different view.

So far, the Scriptures presented have been supportive of my statements.

That is not puffiness, but it is just the way of the NT.

You know that believers are to present God reconciled to man. What greater testimony than this person who had their body mutilated to conform to the world, and now redeemed will live with that decision, and yet will when God is ready (just as Barnabas went to seek out Paul) be presented with all the facts to the assembly.

But, according to the many on this thread, the person should have reassignment reversal surgery, should suddenly show up dressed as a man (which will cause confusion and disturbance to the unity of the Spirit in the assembly in direct violation of Scriptures).

All I have presented is that folks need to let God take care of the growth, maturity, and eventual revealing, just as God took care of Paul.

It may not take three years. After all, Paul was only made blind for a few days and then healed. This person has been blind in sin for a number of years, and can never be physically healed.

 

So you are being rude out of complacency?

 

Have you responded to what @InTheLight posted in post #68?

 

Have you only that left to you which must attempt to discredit the poster?

I truly had hope that as I presented and contested that more Godliness would be seen.

That others would seek wisdom, give understanding, and present that which would be workable for the assembly in which the person of the OP could be both encouraged and see as reliable.

That the accusations and agenda driven posts would be set aside.

But, I have to admit to a great disappointment.

 

That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

How is that relevant?

React to what truth? That they are posing as something they are not?

 

Me?

Rude?

You ask for an explanation, I gave one. Other's ask for other things, I responded to them.

If you think I have been rude to you, then I truly apologize.

But so far, for a pastor who will be confronted at some point with something like this, your response has been less than I expected.

Did that.

I am slow, I know.

 

No, actually they haven't.

Living with that decision means you go back to living as your assigned gender and accepting the consequences of that.

I'm not saying have surgery, but I am saying present yourself (as much as possible) as the gender you biologically are. This idea of confusion and disturbance is not in violation of Scriptures, how in the world can you argue such?

 

Because the person has said they sinned and are now repentant but refuse to act in accordance with repentance of that sin. If he is truly repentant then he must act like he is. He cannot change the abuse he has done to his body but he can still be, look, and live like a man.

Scripture has been presented.

He can do whatever he wants but if he wants to be a member of the church then he needs to show that he is repentant.

This is not just about homosexuality. It is about the entire transgender lifestyle. And he can be discipled without being a member.

 

I am not concerned about what you expect. I am not trying to meet your standard on how to respond to this.

 

There is nothing godly about a man pretending to be a woman.

 

Aw, come on David. Certainly you have to have been in the SBC long enough to know that the typical SBC church is full of folks not wanting to be exposed for who they really are.

Why would you think that is absurd?

Most of my ministry has been helping hurting churches that have been devastated by liars. Part of the problem is the folks lie to themselves. When confronted, they want to make grand excuses for their behavior, and I love the one that goes, "We are a Southern Baptist Church and this is how things are done."

Because who wants to be vulnerable (especially about that which is hidden pertaining to who they really are) among people who are liars?

So, of course it is relevant.

A wise pastor may not want this person to give testimony knowing that the people do not have the Christian character to deal with the information.

A wise pastor may even suggest another assembly far better qualified in which that person may grow in the wisdom and understanding as God works in their life.

So, of course it is relevant.

And why not?

I knew a pastor many years ago who got redeemed. He struggled with how to deliver that message to the people. He knew from his teens he wasn't redeemed.

Certainly, it is a concern for any believer who needs to bring a matter before the assembly to consider reactions.

The reason I knew about the pastor was he was "testing the waters" to discern my and other peoples initial reaction.

That is the most natural way for one who is unsure to proceed.

Even if one is out for a stroll, and comes across an unfamiliar and potentially hazardous crossing, they will either avoid it all together to test with each step.

It is a psychological safety mechanism called self preservation.

 

I just expressed how I considered.

I will lower my expectations.

There is nothing Godly in demanding change that cannot take place, as some posters have presented.

One of the areas that would have been good to discuss is that power of sin in which the mind is twisted into this situation.

MRI tests have shown that there may certainly be actual brain changes that take place. Particularly in adolescents.

This is important, because should these very early findings be further validated, then it puts to test much of the arguments considered in this thread about the gender and even about the life being a lie. It may or it may not. When Romans records God giving people over, we may or may not have the ability to physically see the results.

For those who desire, here is just an original study link: Transgender brains are more like their desired gender from an early age

For a different viewpoint and one that points to the above link look at this: Study Showing Brains Differ for Gender Dysphoria Doesn't Prove Transgenderism Innate, Experts Say

And one more: Research on the Transgender Brain: What You Should Know – Health Essentials from Cleveland Clinic

Please folks, I don't present these articles to convince, but to show that there is ongoing work being done to bring to the medical community more insight into this matter.

But, to the community of believers, what do the Scriptures consider of a new believer and this life event?

Just saying, they are liars, perverts, predators... and other demeaning pronunciations does not help the pastors and authorities of the assembly when they will encounter this matter. And I predict they most certainly will.

And for those who cling to the idea that they are liars, of course they are.

John stated that ALL are liars. That includes me and it includes you.

 

There was nothing high about it.

I cannot answer for them.

That is a bunch of bunk

 

That's not unique to SBC, but that isn't what I was saying is absurd. The absurdity was saying they are being honest with themselves.

Here is why it isn't relevant. Is it any different than any other liar? Actually yes. Because they are doing it willingly and publically so that people actually know it is being done. That doesn't make secret lies less evil, but it is fundamentally different. We can't know what people do in secret, but we do know what they do in public and must deal accordingly.

 

He did. He went with a #3.

Although if the Bible says a man wearing women's clothing "is an abomination" [KJV] I'm inclined to think it's not a rule that God relaxed for new testament times.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

I am of the opinion that moral commands in the Old Testament have never been abrogated. Murder, theft, false witness, and adultery are all moral issues listed in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Crossdressing (Deuteronomy 22:5) is also a moral prohibition that is as binding today as it was when the command was written. The same with homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22).

I read what @agedman wrote in post #70. He basically took the Old Testament and tossed it in the toilet. I am beginning to see the origins of his error. He does not consider the 66 books of the Bible to be the whole counsel of God. Of course, he will deny my charge but that is the result of his statements in post #70.

I understand that not everyone on this board believes what I do in regards to the Law in the Old Testament and that is OK. I believe the judicial and ceremonial aspects of the Law have been fulfilled in Christ. We do not have to offer animal sacrifices or follow the Old Testament judicial system*. However, the moral law of God, which is the God-given inherent knowledge of right and wrong, continues to this day. It existed before the Law was given at Sinai. Some parts of God's moral law were codified at Sinai in the Decalogue (thou shall not kill, steal, commit adultery, bear false witness) and as I wrote in the first paragraph of this post, they are as binding today as when they were written.


*Although our current form of jurisprudence has some basis in the judicial Law of Moses.

 

Right, the New Testament doesn't abrogate the moral commands of the Old Testament. And, the New Testament itself condemns homosexuality and male effeminacy (which would include crossdressing).

In fact, no law of the OT has been repealed. Then why can we eat pork? Eating pork was never against the law (as far as being a sin or having criminal consequences)! The prohibition of pork was purely a ceremonial law. After eating pork, you'd be ceremonially unclean. Becoming clean might just require short passage of time. Or, it might require a sacrifice. Jesus, in his sacrifice, makes everything clean. Jesus didn't abolish the ceremonial law, he fulfilled the ceremonial law. Therefor, eating pork can't make a Christian unclean.

Any SBC church that would extend membership to a man who dresses as a woman is reprobate and should be expelled from the SBC fellowship and turned over to Satan.

 

Please forgive me if it seems like I am being picky. I just want to get to the issue of the heart attitude. The issue for Jews under the Law was one of a heart attitude of disobedience. While it was impossible to keep the Law, a wilful desire to disobey the Law revealed a heart that was far from God. It is similar to what Paul wrote in Romans 6:1-2a, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be!" But yes, if a Jew broke the dietary law they would be unclean until evening. Of course, the scenario as presented in the OP, while dramatic, has no ambiguity from the Scripture's perspective. The church is not displaying a lack of love or compassion by asking a person who has been falsely living as a member of the other gender to make an immediate break from that lifestyle. Again, the church should stand beside the person and help them as much as possible but allowing the sin to persist actually causes the church to participate in that sin.

This will be my last post in this thread. While this discussion is germane to the times we live in, I am genuinely grieved by the fact that I am not surprised some Christians have a differing opinion. I have become so jaded at the condition of the church that I have lost the capacity to be shocked. Perhaps that is something I need to repent of. We have a marvelous hope set before us and it is unhealthy to yield to a systemic pessimism.