FBF: Homosexual Clergy and Churches? ABOMINATION!

Or maybe it's Holy Week and he's a workin' stiff.

Haruo
who disagrees with the main points made in this thread but is too busy to rebut today

PS: I will say I am heartened and surprised to hear that there are IFB churches taking a W&A stance

 

Hi "i am blessed." I appreciate your follow up. The topic and emphasis of your thread concerns "abomination" and that is why you capitalized and "exclamation pointed" that word in the title of your thread.

I have asked whether you also applied your conclusion in this thread concerning "abomination" with those areas that the Bible flatly calls "abomination" (like the examples I provided earlier - such as "those who sow discord" etc). Though I've asked you this question three times now, you have not answered. This thread, not a new one, is where you should answer my questions as it is THIS thread that prompted my inquiry in the first place. Thanks! latterrain77

 

latterrain77, Am I correct in surmising your question to be "Why aren't you condemning gossipers, adulterers etc as forcefully as you are homos?"

Sin IS sin,and the various "levels of sinfulness" are created by us humans.

Based on this assumption, I fully believe that when someone tries to get us to ACCEPT, by legal means, their lifestyle that is a very specific sin, then you'll hear the same objections raised that are re: this topic.

For the most part, adulterers, gossipers, thieves, etc. do not claim that they are born this way, nor attempt to twist the Word of God to justify their sin. Sure, they will rationalize, but never try to get a legal standing to force the approval of others.

If my assumption of your question is wrong, then I have no earthly idea WHAT you are asking!

 

Are gossipers sinners?, yes;
Are adulterers sinners?, yes;
Are theives sinners?, yes.
However, we do not find (as far as I know)any of the above groups organizing and demanding that their lifestyle be accepted by everyone as the gay community has demanded. This we cannot and must not do.
Now the defenders of this lifestyle may come back at this point and say, "Then all of you are perfect?" Certainly not! If we say we have no sin, we are liers. However, when we sin and fall short of the Glory of God, we should confess and turn from that sin. If one habitually sins in some area and that does not bother him or her and there are no signs that God is dealing with that sin in that person, one must seriously question their spiritual state.
Charles

 

Hi "just want peace" and "watchman." Thank you for your comments. I agree with much of what you have said.

In Proverbs 6: 16-19, a list of 7 abominations are provided by GOD for our review. We are advised that GOD "hates" these abominations (six of them). Homosexuality is NOT among this list nor does it say anywhere in the Bible that GOD "hates" homosexuality in the same manner that the Bible DOES say GOD "hates" the Proverbs abominations! What should we conclude from this?

My question to "i am blessed" was to determine if THOSE abominations in Proverbs 6: 16-19 should receive the same weight that was urged concerning homosexuality and "abomination" in her thread. So far, "i am blessed" has not answered the questions.

As I'm sure you have noticed, there are PLENTY of people in the world (and even in our own churches) who brazenly practice the abominations that GOD "hates" listed in Proverbs 6: 16-19 (as well as others). Yet, we don't hold those who practice the Proverbs 6: 16-19 GOD "hated" abominations to the same standards that we demand of others. Why?

Last thought; please understand that I (and perhaps you too) believe completely in the 100% inerrancy of the Bible. The Bereans checked the Scriptures to test the truth and accuracy of every thing that was taught and preached - and they were counted NOBLE for doing so (Acts 7: 10-13, v11). It is prudent to follow the example of the Bereans. Otherwise we will surely reach damnable conclusions. Thanks! latterrain77

[ April 19, 2003, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

Dear Latterrain77,

You said...

Yes Latterrain, it could have been. Look at the discord that has been sown here on the BB by this subject.
And yes I wonder what these clergys' parents think of their homosexual offspring.

And one could say that these homosexual clergy have spoken with lying lips considering that the Scripture forbids the practice while these call it (among other things) an "alternative life style" practicing it openly making God as it were a liar.

Lastly we tend to go overboard with our condemnation of certain sins because (well who really knows why).

We are all that way, we are much more judgmental of those sins that we ourselves don't commit and much more forgiving in the converse situation, but we, in either and/or every case (as you pointed out) need to call a rose by its proper name.

I believe (but don't know for sure) that blessed 16 thought it was this sin's turn to get its come-upance.

Peace
HankD

 

77 my question is what do you conclude from this, I appreciate your answer before when you stated you believe in the scriptures but I am still concerned by your posts here and as forum moderator I demand to know your intention as well as your stance on homsexuality, please be specific. Also I think Sue has answered your question.
Murph

 

I cannot speak for latterrain77, but I will say that I am interested in seeing his question addressed (as opposed to his motives impugned). I have no doubt that many here, including both Sue and Murph, sincerely believe that homosexual activity is always and inherently sinful, and that churches have a duty before God to say so. I disagree on those points, but I don't deny the sincerity of many of my opponents.

For those of us who believe that this interpretation of Scripture is incorrect, and who have come to believe that we cannot, as followers of the risen Christ Jesus and possessors of his New Testament, be other than open, welcoming, and affirming of the grace manifest in the lives of our GLBT fellow Christians, and who wish to be in dialogue with Christians who have not come to that understanding, it is of great interest to know how the actual Biblical texts dealing with homosexual acts, and those dealing with abomination(s), Sodomites, etc., are exegeted by those of you who disagree with us. Yet most of you seem to wave the words "Sodomite", "abomination", and "sin" around in a confusing and (it looks to me) confused way, treating quite distinct terms as synonyms (and, pardon the puns, occasionally as homonyms!) and, when asked for (not demandingly, but in a collegial way) for an explanation you return with demands and impugnings of motives. Makes it difficult to discuss things.

Haruo
welcoming & affirming baptist

 

Hi hankD. How are you? Thank you for your comments. I agree with some of what you said (though you seemed a little angry - have I offended you? - I hope I have not). Hank, I do not agree with your comment where you said; "...we are much more judgmental of those sins that we ourselves don't commit and much more forgiving in the converse situation..." In my life, the absolute EXACT opposite is true. Also, I do not believe that it is sowing discord to ask questions, especially when Biblical support is provided (and requested) for the questions asked. It IS sowing discord to say that other Christians, who hold a view other than our own, "makes us sick."

Hi Murph. Thank you for the follow up. The "demand" part of your question feels a little heavy handed but I'll submit to it. My intentions are exactly as I stated to you earlier - searching for truth through the Bible alone. I respectfully disagree with you in that I don't believe "i am blessed" has answered my questions at all. She has not commented on the Proverbs "abomination" verses nor has she commented on my earlier "ten commandments" examples. The topic of her thread is specifically about "abmonination" so my asking questions about the subject of BIBLICAL "abomination" (a subject that she raised) is certainly reasonable and not out of order. It appears that "i am blessed" wanted to make a speech rather than engage in dialogue. Fair Enough! I no longer expect an answer from her.

Murph, even though my direct questions have NOT been answered, I WILL answer your direct question with a direct answer. My position on ALL sexuality outside of marriage is abstinence. The marriage bed is undefiled (Hebrews 13: 4).

1 Tim. 3 requires that clergy (pastors) MUST be "given to hospitality" (v2) with others - INCLUDING the homosexual. A pastor must be well mannered and of good behavior (v2) to ALL including the homosexual. A pastor must be equally INCLUSIVE toward the homosexual as he is towards heterosexuals or anyone else and he should be eager to teach a homosexual as he should be eager to teach a heterosexual or anyone else (v2). Accordingly, one should expect that there will be homosexuals along with everyone else in the congregations as a result of this dynamic. The church is NOT a country club that excludes people who make us uncomfortable. The church should be a REFUGE! How else will they hear unless a preacher be sent???? (Rom. 10: 14-15). We should not become "sickened" by this dynamic. It represents OPPORTUNITY for the kingdom. We are required to LOOK for those opportunities not chase them away (John 4: 35).

Christ came for sinners - of which ALL of us are. Christ came for those who engaged in sexual immorality too even telling us that they would enter into heaven before the self-righteous "holy ones" did and that is why we MUST especially reach out to them (Matt. 21: 32). None of us are any more "righteous" or moral than any other man. If I think that I'm more "righteous" than an another man then it only proves that I'm not (Luke 18: 11-14). Wasn't the thief on the cross a sinner? So much so that he himself said he was worthy of death (Luke 23: 41). Yet despite this, he was promised ETERNAL LIFE by the LORD (Luke 23: 43).

I believe that a friendly and cheerful; "well hello there neighbor how do you do?" will yield better results for the kingdom of GOD than making any ONE group the focus of our angst. Imagine if the LORD took this approach - Never mind - it's too impossible to imagine! Thanks! latterrain77

 

Haruo as Dr. Bob has responded to your post I will not remove it as I first thought to do. I will say that this line of posting will not be allowed on the fundamental forum as we hold to a literal interpretation of scripture here. There are forums where this is allowed but not here, any further similar posts will be removed. You are free to visit here but you must adhere to the rules of this forum.

Murph

 

77 my question is what do you conclude from this, I appreciate your answer before when you stated you believe in the scriptures but I am still concerned by your posts here and as forum moderator I demand to know your intention as well as your stance on homsexuality, please be specific. Also I think Sue has answered your question.
Murph </font>[/QUOTE]77 I decided to quote my post because you still did not state your stance on homosexuality. maybe you did and I was not specific enough. My intent was for you to detail your view on homosexuality, you gave me your view on what the churches responce should be. I do demand to know your view on the sinfulness of homosexuality and how you feel about it as a legitimate Biblical lifestyle. Even if I seem heavy handed I demand that you share your view on homosexuality before you post on this thread again.


Murph

 

I am well. No, you have neither angered or offended me. You did strike a chord which I felt needed a response.

OK. Not so for me. Maybe I was hasty in my opinion.

The view on homosexuality for the believer is not just "another view".
This sin is singled out in the Scripture as a sin which is the result of a history of rebellion against God (Romans 1:26-32), the end of the line in individual apostasy. Perhaps not the history of every individual in bondage to this sin but it is singled out in the Scripture as particularly grievous.

That this sin "makes us sick" (repulsed is the word I would choose) is a spontaneous reaction in many people (myself included).
To say differently would be an untruth.
If that response is wrong, I do not know.
I just know that it is a reality for me.

To ask questions may or may not be wrong, depending...
Provocative questions generally lead to discord.
No doubt your questions have some validity but wisdom should reign in the area of the "inflamatory".

Finally, I don't believe that the other sins which you mentioned have gotten any less a beating here on the BB than the current one.

It was this sin's turn to be flayed and so it was.

HankD

 

Hi Murph. I thought I answered your question plainly but I'm pleased to elaborate further. My stance on homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality outside of marriage is abstinence. Sexuality outside of marriage is inappropriate for a Christian (Hebrews 13: 4). The "sexual lifestyle" that is Biblically sanctioned is the marriage bed.

Following up on my previous inquiries not yet answered, I have some questions for you Murph (or any others). Are the "abominations" listed in Proverbs 6: 16-19 worthy of hate? What about homosexuality? If yes to one or both, why? Please cite chapter and verse. Thanks! latterrain77

 

Latterrain, please allow me to repeat myself: I said "many people (myself included}" are repulsed by this category of sin. Most others sins, not so.
A negative reaction but not always repulsion.
perhaps I have not attained to your sensitivity to sin but I am not alone.

Homophobic? perhaps.

As to its being singled out as grievous take the example of Sodom and Gommorah, He didn't destroy these cities raining down fire and brimstone making them examples of God's wrath because they were gossips.

In Romans we are told "God gave them up...".


HankD

 

Latterrain, please allow me to repeat myself: I said "many people (myself included}" are repulsed by this category of sin. Most others sins, not so.
A negative reaction but not always repulsion.
perhaps I have not attained to your sensitivity to sin but I am not alone.

Homophobic? perhaps.

As to its being singled out as grievous take the example of Sodom and Gommorah, He didn't destroy these cities raining down fire and brimstone making them examples of God's wrath because they were gossips.

In Romans we are told "God gave them up...".


HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Latterain,

All sin is repulsive and we should be repulsed 24 hours a day! One of the greatest problems we have today is that few people are repulsed by any sin.

Hank D.,

Your quote of "God gave them up" in this way is about a gross of a misuse of Scripture as I've ever heard. Yes, God gave men up to commit the abomination of sodomy, but unless you think there is a difference between God "giving them up" and "giving them over" you must conclude that gossip is repulsive to God as is sodomy; for Paul said,

"God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do THOSE THINGS which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, coveteousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; wisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God that they which do SUCH THINGS are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

All sin is so repulsive to God as to require blood sacrifice as an atonement for it. Christ was crucified for gossips as surely as for sexual deviates, which means both deserved the same punishment.

For the record, I'm not implying that we should be any less repulsed by sodomy, but that we should be repulsed by all sin.

Mark Osgatharp

 

I'm glad you said "should" because we aren't repulsed by the sins we commit when we commit them.

BTW if you check my other posts you will see that I said this particular sin is part of a history of rebellion against God and is characteristic of individual apostasy.

I'm not sure exactly what your objection is because I already publicly acknowledged that my sensitivity to this kind of sin is different than to other categories of sins. So it was unecessary (imo) for your personal rebuke towards me.

HankD

[ April 20, 2003, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Hank,

You used the "God gave them up" statement to suggest that sodomites were given up to sin in a way that other sinners were not and that is what incurred my "rebuke."

Romans chapter 1 is not describing any special class of sinners - it is describing sin as it is in the world. I live in a small Arkansas community, and Paul's description fits this community as well as it fits ancient Greece or Rome or modern day New York City.

The whole point of Romans chapters 1-3 is to prove that the whole human race is under sin. As Paul said in chapter 3,

"We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin."

Again, my point is not to minimize the repugnancy of sodomy, but to recognize what Paul clearly taught, which is that all sin is repugnant to God and incurs the wrath of God. As it is written,

"The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness."

Mark Osgatharp

 

As I have already been accused of being heavy handed I will risk further rebuke by stating that I find your exlanation lacking. IMO your statement above leaves open the possibility that a so called married homosexual relationship is a Biblically accepted one. As I have stated before I have reservations about some of the comments made on this thread. I feel that the point raised by the originator of this thread has been dealt with and that the responces given have been for the most part in agreement with fundamental Baptist doctrine so no sooner than Monday at 6:00 a.m. I will close this thread.
Murph