Homosexual groups advocate at Christian colleges with Christian Council blessing

[standingfirminChrist]

The Bible says,

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Yet some would say that we don't need the Written Word. That we can hear from God through an inner voice. We can hear from God through an inner voice, this is true. But we can also hear the voice of satan as well. If we do not have the Written Word to guide us, how are we to identify who that voice that we hear belongs to?

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The Written Word is necessary in the Believer's life. It is what causes us to know the voice we hear is truly God's voice.

You may say, 'Wait just a minute... Jesus said we would know His voice and a stranger we will not follow.' Ahhhh, but you forget one important detail. Satan is not a stranger. We knew him before we knew Jesus.

 

[tinytim]

The prompting of the Holy Spirit will never contradict His word, the Bible..
God does not contradict Himself.

I too believe that the Holy Spirit talks to us via an inner voice, but He will never tell us to do anything contrary to The Bible.

There are no new revelations, but the HS may impress something on someone, that will illuminate something in The Bible. .. through which He guides us..

 

[Blackhawkk]

Okay, Superbaptist (what a name!) definitely needs our prayers. It would be easy to say he's just a kook, but it's obviously he's deceived. Don't know his background or influences but they certianly aren't sound!

We could just ignore him and his spouting of new age philosophy or pray for him. Debating would be useless for a message board. He needs counselling and hopefully he has some strong Christian friends that could help him. How much can anyone of us help him by this message board? So, let's pray for him.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I certainly agree that the practice of homosexuality is a sin and does not belong on the campuses of Christian colleges and universities, but I do not believe that it is fair to single out homosexuals. Most Christian colleges and universities allow students to enroll and graduate even if they are living in an adulterous relationship with a second spouse while the first spouse, though divorced, is still alive. And many Christian colleges and universities even allow men and women to teach in their institutions if they are living in an adulterous relationship with a second spouse while the first spouse, though divorced, is still alive. Sexual sin is sexual sin and discriminating against any one kind of sexual sin is sin in and of itself.

 

[SuperBaptist]

Try to find a Baptist Forum that has more than a few on it it, though there are millions of us. This is why; most have stopped learning from the Word of the HS.

I am not a Gnostic; all I have is faith. No burning bush or infallible, objective, paper bible, though I still read it in proper context and find great inspiration and guidance. Interestingly, I have never met the unsaved that doubted the truth in the RED LETTERS. The rest has been open to much attack. And I just don't defend it anymore as "infallible". I live in Faith and Love and I spread the Word. Thanks for your prayers and patronizing.

I can assure you there are those who need your prayers more than I. Go, speak witness to them and live in a way that provides testimony of your faith.

 

[Ransom]

SuperBaptist said:

I am not a Gnostic; all I have is faith. No burning bush or infallible, objective, paper bible

Not a Gnostic? Man, that's about as Gnostic as you can get: pure subjectivism, spiritual teaching so secret that only you are privy to it!

Interestingly, I have never met the unsaved that doubted the truth in the RED LETTERS. The rest has been open to much attack.

Not least by so-called "Christians" and self-styled "Baptists."

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by SuperBaptist:


I am not a Gnostic; all I have is faith. No burning bush or infallible, objective, paper bible, though I still read it in proper context and find great inspiration and guidance.

Your faith is misplaced. What do you have faith in. Faith always has an object. The object of my faith is in Jesus Christ, as defined by the Word of God. If that is not the object of your faith, then your faith is misplaced. Where does the Christian look for faith?

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Your "faith of the Holy Spirit" is pure gnosticism.
DHK

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I certainly agree that the practice of homosexuality is a sin and does not belong on the campuses of Christian colleges and universities, but I do not believe that it is fair to single out homosexuals. Most Christian colleges and universities allow students to enroll and graduate even if they are living in an adulterous relationship with a second spouse while the first spouse, though divorced, is still alive. And many Christian colleges and universities even allow men and women to teach in their institutions if they are living in an adulterous relationship with a second spouse while the first spouse, though divorced, is still alive. Sexual sin is sexual sin and discriminating against any one kind of sexual sin is sin in and of itself.

Except that only your type of eisogesis leads one to believe that divorce and remarriage renders one a perpetual sinner and wholly unuseful to God.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I certainly agree that the practice of homosexuality is a sin and does not belong on the campuses of Christian colleges and universities, but I do not believe that it is fair to single out homosexuals. Most Christian colleges and universities allow students to enroll and graduate even if they are living in an adulterous relationship with a second spouse while the first spouse, though divorced, is still alive. And many Christian colleges and universities even allow men and women to teach in their institutions if they are living in an adulterous relationship with a second spouse while the first spouse, though divorced, is still alive. Sexual sin is sexual sin and discriminating against any one kind of sexual sin is sin in and of itself.

Many Christian Colleges...
Not to my knowledge. You must a fairly loose definition of Christian--probably humanistic would be the better word. The Christian Colleges I am acquainted with would fire those teachers caught in adulterous relationships just as quick as homosexual ones. Sexual immorality of anykind is wrong.
DHK

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I agree...

A true Christian College would not want a teacher or professor who was living a lifestyle in contradiction to God's Holy Word.

 

[Scott J]

CBTS is trying to make his point that divorcees can never be forgiven... they must perpetually pay for their "sin" or else the sin of their spouse by abstaining from remarriage. If they don't, according to Craig's manipulation of scripture, they are adulterers that cannot be used by God... of course this is the same fellow who states as a fact that the worldwide flood never occurred.

I suppose we can take that as an indication of the amount of respect given to the actual statements of scripture in his interpretations.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I certainly agree that the practice of homosexuality is a sin and does not belong on the campuses of Christian colleges and universities, but I do not believe that it is fair to single out homosexuals. Most Christian colleges and universities allow students to enroll and graduate even if they are living in an adulterous relationship with a second spouse while the first spouse, though divorced, is still alive. And many Christian colleges and universities even allow men and women to teach in their institutions if they are living in an adulterous relationship with a second spouse while the first spouse, though divorced, is still alive. Sexual sin is sexual sin and discriminating against any one kind of sexual sin is sin in and of itself.

Except that only your type of eisogesis leads one to believe that divorce and remarriage renders one a perpetual sinner and wholly unuseful to God. </font>[/QUOTE]Except that only your type of eisogesis leads one to believe that homosexuality renders one a perpetual sinner and wholly unuseful to God. The one dominant theme throughout the New Testament is that God is a God of love and not hate. The God of the New Testament is full of mercy, kindness, and understanding. God is not an ogre who gave us our sexuality to tempt us to sin; God gave us our sexuality for our enjoyment. To tell the homosexual, who like everyone else was made in the image of God, that he should not enjoy God’s gift of his sexuality is to tell him that God made a mistake in creating him as he is and in giving him the gift of his sexuality. God has never made a mistake. The mistake is on the part of the self-righteous, arrogant and wicked so-called conservative evangelical Christians who preach a message of hate and damnation rather than the message of love and acceptance taught by the Lord Jesus Christ. Your own lives are racked with sin and immorality and yet you set yourselves up as God and judge others! It is you who are damned to the fires of hell for eternity!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I certainly agree that the practice of homosexuality is a sin and does not belong on the campuses of Christian colleges and universities, but I do not believe that it is fair to single out homosexuals. Most Christian colleges and universities allow students to enroll and graduate even if they are living in an adulterous relationship with a second spouse while the first spouse, though divorced, is still alive. And many Christian colleges and universities even allow men and women to teach in their institutions if they are living in an adulterous relationship with a second spouse while the first spouse, though divorced, is still alive. Sexual sin is sexual sin and discriminating against any one kind of sexual sin is sin in and of itself.

Except that only your type of eisogesis leads one to believe that divorce and remarriage renders one a perpetual sinner and wholly unuseful to God. </font>[/QUOTE]Except that only your type of eisogesis leads one to believe that homosexuality renders one a perpetual sinner and wholly unuseful to God.</font>[/QUOTE] Never said it and don't believe it.

The one dominant theme throughout the New Testament is that God is a God of love and not hate. The God of the New Testament is full of mercy, kindness, and understanding. God is not an ogre who gave us our sexuality to tempt us to sin; God gave us our sexuality for our enjoyment.

I agree. And I agree that He established boundaries to that enjoyment to ensure that it is righteous and not unrighteous pleasure... I disagree with your manipulation of scripture making divorce an unforgiveable sin.

To tell the homosexual, who like everyone else was made in the image of God, that he should not enjoy God’s gift of his sexuality is to tell him that God made a mistake in creating him as he is and in giving him the gift of his sexuality.

I haven't told them that... I simply point them to the expression of sexuality that God approves through the scriptures.

Homosexuals aren't wrong because they disagree with me... they are wrong because their behavior is contrary to God's Word.

You OTOH have condemned divorcees not because they are wrong per God's standard but rather by yours.

God has never made a mistake. The mistake is on the part of the self-righteous, arrogant and wicked so-called conservative evangelical Christians who preach a message of hate and damnation rather than the message of love and acceptance taught by the Lord Jesus Christ.

"No" is not an unloving word. "No" is quite often the most loving word. In the case of homosexuality... it is the most loving word you can say. "No"- God does not approve your lifestyle. No it does not meet His standard for morality. No, you will not escape judgment if you don't repent of that sin.

Your own lives are racked with sin and immorality and yet you set yourselves up as God and judge others! It is you who are damned to the fires of hell for eternity!

Whether you are being facetious or not... you once again make a good back drop for those of us who rely on what the scriptures actually say.

I am not judging anyone by my standard... you are. God's Word isn't ambiguous about the sin of homosexuality... and God isn't unloving in the least by commanding men not to sin. In fact, it is most loving since He knows that it will bring man to his greatest fulfillment to obey what God has communicated in scripture.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

God did not give that homosexual the desire for sexual sins with his own gender. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve nor Madam and Eve. God also gave them the command to be fruitful and multiply. One living a homosexual lifestyle cannot multiply.

As to God being merciful and loving and compassionate, He is all those. But He is more. He is a just God. He is not a liar. He said all that practice such shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven... He meant it.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Scott J:
CBTS is trying to make his point that divorcees can never be forgiven... they must perpetually pay for their "sin" or else the sin of their spouse by abstaining from remarriage. If they don't, according to Craig's manipulation of scripture, they are adulterers that cannot be used by God... of course this is the same fellow who states as a fact that the worldwide flood never occurred.

How dare you post such an outrageous and libelous misrepresentation of the belief and teaching of another member of this message board?

Originally posted by Scott J:
I suppose we can take that as an indication of the amount of respect given to the actual statements of scripture in his interpretations.

Such ad hominem attacks are not just a lazy cop-out—they are intellectual dishonesty at its worst! Should anyone who willfully and deliberately commits such sins against his neighbor be allowed on the campus of a Christian college or University—absolutely not!

Jesus' Teaching about Divorce
Mark 10:1. Getting up, He *went from there to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan; crowds *gathered around Him again, and, according to His custom, He once more began to teach them.
2. Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife.
3. And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?"
4. They said, "Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY."
5. But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
6. "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
7. "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,
8. AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9. "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
10. In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again.
11. And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;
12. and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery." (NASB, 1995)

Notice especially verse 12 the phrase “she is committing adultery.” This phrase, in the Greek New Testament is one word, μοιχαται, and that word is in the present indicative tense indicating continuous action. Just try to quote one Baptist grammar that says anything different!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Scott J wrote,

God's Word isn't ambiguous about the sin of homosexuality... and God isn't unloving in the least by commanding men not to sin. In fact, it is most loving since He knows that it will bring man to his greatest fulfillment to obey what God has communicated in scripture.

God’s word isn’t ambiguous about the sin or divorce and remarriage… and God isn’t unloving in the least by commanding men not to sin. In fact, it is most loving since He knows that it will bring man to his greatest fulfillment to obey what God has communicated in scripture.

Jesus' Teaching about Divorce
Mark 10:1. Getting up, He *went from there to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan; crowds *gathered around Him again, and, according to His custom, He once more began to teach them.
2. Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife.
3. And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?"
4. They said, "Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY."
5. But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
6. "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
7. "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,
8. AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9. "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
10. In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again.
11. And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;
12. and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery." (NASB, 1995)

Notice especially verse 12 the phrase “she is committing adultery.” This phrase, in the Greek New Testament is one word, μοιχαται, and that word is in the present indicative tense indicating continuous action. Just try to quote one Baptist grammar that says anything different!

 

[Karen]

Craig,
Other than perhaps the use of the word manipulation, how is what he said ad hominem?
You do have a viewpoint that remarriage is not allowed, (you might allow after the death of the former marriage partner - I don't remember).
You don't interpret a great deal of Scripture literally. It is not ad hominem to believe you mean what you say about the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

Karen

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
God did not give that homosexual the desire for sexual sins with his own gender. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve nor Madam and Eve. God also gave them the command to be fruitful and multiply. One living a homosexual lifestyle cannot multiply.

As to God being merciful and loving and compassionate, He is all those. But He is more. He is a just God. He is not a liar. He said all that practice such shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven... He meant it.

Amen! And because He is a just God, He does not discriminate against one type of sinner in the favor of another. The very reason why Christian Evangelicals are being accused by the high courts in the United States for discriminating against homosexuals is that the Christian Evangelicals have singled out the homosexuals and they are treating them differently than persons who are living in adulterous heterosexual relationships.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Karen:
Craig,
Other than perhaps the use of the word manipulation, how is what he said ad hominem?
You do have a viewpoint that remarriage is not allowed, (you might allow after the death of the former marriage partner - I don't remember).
You don't interpret a great deal of Scripture literally. It is not ad hominem to believe you mean what you say about the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

Karen

Main Entry: 1ad ho•mi•nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made (courtesy of the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

Rather than showing from the Scriptures where my exegesis is faulty, Scott has falsely and libelously accused me of reading into the text that which is not there. You yourself have used an ad hominem argument by referring to my agreement with the current conservative (but not fundamentalist) scholarship on the first eleven chapters of Genesis. If you believe that my interpretation of the Greek text of Mark 10:1-12 is faulty, show me where in the Greek text I am in error, but don’t post ad hominem attacks to refute my interpretation of the Greek text of Mark 10:1-12. As is the case with everything that I and every other member of this message board posts, my interpretation of the Greek text of Mark 10:1-12 stands upon its own merit.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
CBTS is trying to make his point that divorcees can never be forgiven... they must perpetually pay for their "sin" or else the sin of their spouse by abstaining from remarriage. If they don't, according to Craig's manipulation of scripture, they are adulterers that cannot be used by God... of course this is the same fellow who states as a fact that the worldwide flood never occurred.

How dare you post such an outrageous and libelous misrepresentation of the belief and teaching of another member of this message board?</font>[/QUOTE]You mean other than this not being a misrepresentation of what you have posted on this message board?

You have scoffed at the notion of a Flood or that Genesis 1-11 can possibly be literal. You only derive this "interpretation" about divorce by dismissing one of the other gospels for daring to contradict your opinion by including the "exception"... that is accurately called manipulation.

Thus saith Craig: "All divorced people living with their current spouse in accordance with NT commands concerning the institution of marriage are in perpetual adultery." Scripture doesn't say that... but scripture not saying something has yet to stop you from asserting your own version of the "truth" and condemning those who dare trust the plain text instead.