Transgendered Member?

Even though you decided to not post, I wanted to respond. For this and the previous post presented some thing that I needed to share.

1) I am not discarding the OT. As I posted, the OT provides wonderful and necessary principles to live by.

2) I pointed out that the council specifically dealt with the issues concerning the OT conformity to Jewish customs and rules. They resolved that NO burden would by placed on the Gentiles except three. Such did not and does not do away with any statement in the OT but relegates it from Law to principles to live by for the Gentile. Such principles as each believer then may confront issues and build defenses in the manner of conviction and preferences.

The question then must come what of the Decalogue?

That still stands, for Romans presents that the decalogue is written upon every heart of every person that has ever lived. One reason folk of all cultures have some service to a god is the inner understanding of the Decalogue. Christ mentions that the decalogue was summarized in two statements.

It is important that the BB folks know that at no point am I "discarding the OT" as your and other posters seem to present.

The whole and sole point of me posting on the thread was to bring reasonableness to some posters and to get them to consider that as a new believer who has already grown aware that they are in fact needing to change, must be given time and growth in the Scriptures and reliance upon God in order for such to become a reality.

In doing so, I positioned myself as an advocate for that person. I used Scriptures, I used medical articles, and I attempted to show the inconsistency with some who are supposed to be leaders of their own assembly.

Here are some areas I consider we would be in agreement:

You and I both know that total immersion into perverted sinful living does not only do irreparable damage, but also has mental/emotional issues that must be confronted in a timely fashion that growth in maturity of Scriptures and the Christ will bring resolve. That is the job of the Holy Spirit guiding into all truth in which the believer cannot avoid.

You and I both know that unlike any other sin, the sin of the sensual is from inside the body. That is far different than alcoholism, stealing, murder, ... those things that are outside and taken into the body. (1 Cor. 6:18). As a result, one can physically refrain from those sins which come from outside the body, but when the body itself (lust of the flesh) is so severely devastated by the sensual from within, then there are many things that must be brought under the control by the Holy Spirit. That takes time, and that takes accountability, and that takes a group who will disciple and protect that person (often from self harm). Much prayer, much fasting, much intercession.

That is actually all in essence I was presenting. I was confronting rejection with allowing time for God to work in and through the assembly.

I did not agree that the life was sinless. I questioned whether those who posted need to look closer to their own condition and their own assemblies - even as John stated (and I reminded in posts) every person is a liar. Why should that be a problem in this instance resulting in being excluded from the assembly? I took the position that it shouldn't. It was not a well received position.

Some (as you) present that there is intentional deceitfulness in what is worn and besides it not conforming to the OT. I presented that that wasn't the standard to be used, and that such reasoning was invalid concerning the assembly. Exclusion from the assembly based upon clothing worn is inconsistent as well as inappropriate. Everyone who has a wife or daughter, typically knows first hand that the women (especially teens) dress to be looked at, and are often deceitful in how they physically present themselves - "others have to look at you" is what I have often heard as an excuse. So again, the such deceit should exclude from the assembly? Again, that presents inconsistency with what is already allowed. Modesty is the standard, not what is worn.

Some posters went so far as to assign some pretty nasty comments concerning the character of not just the person of the OP but because I dared to present against their exuberance, my own came into question.

We all have nothing but the OP and another post on this thread concerning this person. It is evident from those posts that the character assassinations were not only inappropriate but evil. Yet, when I defend that person, now I am evil?

See, my friend, you are wise to be grieved. I am, too.

That the BB posters, especially those who are supposed to be church leaders, would engage in such darkness and not bring anything of either light and support in which the original poster could use as even the beginning of a template in helping guide this new convert is just pathetically pitiful.

Would that the BB posters would look upon a new contributor who has started a thread on a very sensitive subject as someone presenting needing guidance, and taking the authority given them, stepped in and brought considerably more wisdom to this thread.

So, I attempted. In doing so, some now suggest I am a liberal, a denier of the faith, a discarder of the Scriptures, and all other manner of demeaning statements that are not even close and actually have distracted from the basic subject.

The question of the OP was a plea for guidance.

Most of this thread has not been guidance, but rejection.

I understand that I will shortly give an account before God.

I would not want to be the one who when ask for guidance offered rejection.

 

I had ceased to post in this thread, but will make a last comment in agreement with the above quote. Reformed's statement above pretty much sums up the point I hope I have made.

 

Let's see how consistency with Scriptures and practice these statements can be applied concerning the thinking of the "moral law."

In the OT, what was the punishment for murder, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, swindlers? They each had to physically suffer for their crimes. Some were stoned, some were even punished directly by God opening the earth and swallowing them up.

What does the NT present? "

11Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.​

So, what happened to the "moral law" in which these posters determine to exercise against the OP person? It become a matter for believers of principles to live by and not of punishable law.

See Paul doesn't leave the matter with a simple one verse presentation, he goes on to express:

12All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable.​

Note that he is stating what I said, the law is moved for believers to principles to live by and not commands to be punished.

Paul contines:

All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. ​

Paul is making a specific point about the "moral law." It is modified for believers from punishable crimes to principles to live by.

Paul even gives examples:

13Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. 14Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power.​

This is from Jude:

17But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18that they were saying to you, “In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.” 19These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. 20But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. 22And have mercy on some, who are doubting; 23save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.​

But how does the BB treat one who has been redeemed from the "ungodly lusts?" Certainly not as the statement above would guide. Certainly we are to hate the garment polluted by the flesh, but were is the mercy and fear?

Reader, it is very important that you understand that the Decalogue is not modified. That is written in the heart of every person who has ever lived. (Romans)

Christ even validates it by summarizing it into two statements - Love God, Love humankind.

WHAT SHOULD be the character displayed by the assembly and the leaders for this new convert.

Perhaps Colossians can be used:

5Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, 7in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them.

8But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. 9Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, 11where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

12Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; 13bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. 14But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection. 15And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful. 16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. 17And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.
​

Perhaps someone can show where I have presented that which is false considering the law and considering the application made in this post.

I, as always, am willing to be corrected when shown in error.

But do not come expecting me to be corrected if all you have to offer is what has been offered in this thread.

By far, I have posted more Scripture and made what I have assumed to be the appropriate application of the Scriptures than ALL the posters combined.

Yet, it is not the Scriptures that most posters would use in retort.

There is a warning, though. One that should not be ignored.

God appointed certain to sneak into the assembly. Certain folks who come with one agenda. They do not reveal themselves. They creep in, and pretend to be of the redeemed. They are as Jude states: "...ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."

Now according to the OP, the person of the OP isn't attempting to sneak in, and is not attempting to deny the faith.

I wonder, though, if the distraction in which this person could cause could be used as an occasion by the enemy of God to ravage?

To guard, did I not already point to assignment of mentors, disciplinarians of which will hold folks accountable, and provide both cover and sustaining?

 

I think you need to reconsider.

Look at post #103 for more specific information and my response in post #101.

I realize they are lengthy.

But, this matter of concerning the OT law has not been consistently and rightly rendered by Reform.

Should I be wrong, I welcome Scriptures to bring correction, just as I brought them to Reform for correction.

 

I said I would not post further, but just a quick note. My quote of Reformed above has no reference to the OT law.

I have made points in this thread about the subject and see no need to repeat them. All are free to go back and read what I wrote.

 

Here is the guidance.

Require surgery? No. Stop living the LGBT lifestyle and repent? ABSOLUTELY

 

According to the OP that is exactly what that person has done.

What they have not done is bring confusion to the assembly by changing their wardrobe.

Now, as I read the OP and subsequent post, I caught that the person is inquiring as to how and when such disclosure should be made so as not to allow the devil to ravage neither the assembly nor the workplace.

I hope I have given some advice in that area.

 

Actually the OP does not specify that. It just says that the individual is a rather convincing woman. It never says they have stopped portraying themselves as female to the extent possible.

Why are they worried about the confusion it would bring? Change the wardrobe and repent and confess the sin. Simple as that.

Sounds more like fear than truly caring about the devil causing confusion. The truth will set you free. It should be done swiftly.

 

Of course there is fear!

Look at this thread and the rejection shown.

Paul spent three years before Barnabas sought him out.

Would it be so wrong to allow time for this person to grow in wisdom and strength before shocking the assembly and workplace even her own family? As it was, Paul was met with high suspicion. What will this person face?

Change happens, but those that teach “progressive sanctification” yet would call for immediate change are completely inconsistent.

Either growth in Christ is allowed and change lead by the work of the Holy Spirit, or that person faces rejection. And not just some little playground spat.

The devil will have a field day unless the Holy Spirit is prominent in the decision making.

 

All comes down to if the person either accepts that it would be a sinful lifetyle to pretend to now being a woman or not!

 

Not sure what you are referring to here. Can you give some context?

If by that you mean they continue in sin without confession and repentance, YES that is wrong.

Progressive sanctification does not mean that if we have sin in our lives we deal with it over time. We deal with known sin now. We do not delay. There is no biblical basis for delay. Repent, Confess, Turn.

I think you are confusing two different things here. We are not to continue in sin.

The Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures and said repent, confess and turn. It did not say wait until it is convenient. That is not biblical.

 

Me thinks this is a personal issue for you.

 

He's definitely not coming at the issue with biblical standing that is for sure.

 

Well his statement:

"Change happens, but those that teach “progressive sanctification” yet would call for immediate change are completely inconsistent."

Is odd. Would we let a murderer, adulterer, or thief be a member of our church if they did not immediately stop that behavior? Of course not but on this issue he wants to let them just carry on. This is why I think this is a personal issue for him. He is too emotionally tied to this issue.

 

As for tranny's; gays; lesbians, etc. If the Bible calls them out as sinners, THAT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME! Then, sinners ARE THEY ALL!

 

In fairness, that is all of us. But continuing in that sin and allowing room for "growth" is not biblical.

 

When it comes to sins that are Politically Correct, sins embraced by the Left, especially LGBQTDFE, it's all about love and we're all sinners, blah, blah, blah. But, when it comes to Politically INCorrect sins, sins the Left hates, then it's intolerable, kick them out of church just for their alleged thoughts, pass laws making them criminals for minding their own business!!!

People who's values align with the world, not the Bible, obviously belong to the world (and Satan), not to God.

 

1. If she prefers to be called by the pronoun "she," then it would be best that you respect her wishes. If she prefers to be called "he" or a genderless pronoun like "they", then you're already doing a marvelous job. However, how would you feel if someone intentionally addressed you as "Ma'am" even though you obviously look like and are dressed like a man? In the long run, it doesn't do your church any favors to anger the members of the congregation.

2. There are millions of people who are asexual simply because they don't enjoy intercourse. Hormone therapy may not have any correlation to her desire for that. Maybe she feels too self-conscious of her new body to feel comfortable having intercourse in it yet? There are many factors to consider there.

3. Since she is a person who identifies as a woman, dresses like a woman, and behaves like a woman, then what is the predicament with the boys fawning for her? That would not qualify as homosexuality, as it would not be two men in a relationship together, but one man and one woman as God intended. Her time and effort would be put to much better use by focusing more on growing her faith than questioning something as transient and fleeting as her body. The soul is eternal after all.

 

TeslaTrav, would you also call a veteran in your church with an amputated body part a "grotesque monster?" That kind of shaming is extremely unbecoming of someone claiming to follow in the footsteps of Jesus.

 

ABSOLUTELY NOT that is helping HIM continue in HIS sin by defying God and the natural order.

It absolutely would be homosexuality as it would be a man in a man in a relationship. You should be banned from this board.