How should christians treat the saved homosexual?

[Don]

When was the last time you heard someone referring to themselves as a "meth-addicted Christian"? Or a "murderer Christian"? Or a "thief Christian"? Or a "lying/liar Christian"? Or an "adulterous or fornicating Christian"?

There are Christians who were adulterers, fornicators, murderers, or liars, or thieves, or drug addicts; and some still struggle with impulses, because we are still trapped in these fleshly bodies (just as Paul indicated in Romans 7); but they've thrown off the title of their sin, and claimed the title of a saved child of God.

There are no "homosexual Christians"; there are Christians who struggle with a sexual sin. If we agree that homosexuality is a sin, then let's call it sin; let's not water down our heritage as Christians by referring to ourselves or others as "sinning Christians" (labeling our sin with our title of "Christian").

THEN, let us remember that there is now no condemnation; and as has been said by many others on this board, let's restore each other in a spirit of meekness; and as Zaac has said, build each other up daily, and work to strengthen the body of Christ. We still must call sin sin; we must still remind each other that God hates what we're doing, but loves us in spite of that; and continue to work with each other to overcome the weaknesses of the flesh.

 

[Oldtimer]

I don't think God cares too much what they call themselves as long as their hearts have been changed.

Low these many pages and we are right back at the beginning.

Thread title: How should christians treat the saved homosexual?

As long as they are truly saved, thus their hearts are indeed changed, they should be treated as any other sinner who has come to know our Lord.

-- If they are lost, in the spirit in which it is intended, the WHOLE of the Gospel should be taken to them. Both the love of God and the wrath of God. When He walked among us, He displayed both. When He died for us, as human beings we have no way to fully comprehend the extent of what He denied Himself to give us the ability, through the Holy Spirit, to deny ourselves of the pleasures of our sins. Scripture teaches us that we will not be tempted by satan beyond what we can endure.

-- If they are saved and are truly wrestling with satan's temptations, we are to do everything within our God given means to help them with their struggle. A drunkard may fall off the wagon and tie one on, as the old saying goes. When he awakes the next day, he should be ridden with guilt at his failure. Our responsibility is to help him put that behind him. Whether it's kneeling in prayer with him or offering encouragement to lift him up to try again to stay away from the bottle.

-- If a person professes to be saved and proclaims they have no intention of changing their sleeping arrangements the question is "How should Christians treat the saved homosexual?"

Rephrased: If a man declares that he is saved on Sunday morning and also declares that he intends to go out and get falling down drunk on Sunday evening, how should he be treated?

Should we, as professing Christians, warmly welcome him in love and ignore that he has no intention of repenting of his sinful behaviour? (Substitute any sin that you chose in this example. Anything from stealing paper clips from work to molesting a child.)

We are all children of God as He created us. When we accept Christ, we are adopted into a special family as brothers and sisters. IF another ACTUALLY comes into our family, don't we have a responsbility to both welcome them and council them on what is and isn't acceptable to our Father? If an act of sin was an abomination to God before the person was saved, isn't it also an abomination afterwards, if we willfully continue in that sin?

If we don't both welcome and instruct, then have we not also failed in the eyes of our Father?

:null:

 

[Zaac]

When was the last time you heard someone referring to themselves as a "meth-addicted Christian"? Or a "murderer Christian"? Or a "thief Christian"? Or a "lying/liar Christian"? Or an "adulterous or fornicating Christian"?

I hear folks all the time say I'm a Christian but I'm still a drug addict. Or I'm a Christian and I'm still addicted to porn. Or I'm a Christian and I'm still sexually attracted to the same sex.

You like a lot of the church are dealing too much in your perceptions and not in the reality of what is.

They still identify with what they struggle with because it's the coping mechanism that they lived with for a large part of their lives. And when all you get from the Church is a bunch of words that highlights the Church's prejudices and not a true desire to help them to use Jesus to cope, why wouldn't they identify with their struggles?

The struggle helps them to keep coping and stay alive. While the church and all the you can't be this if you're this, and you can't be saved if this, and the you're an abomination, or you're the worst of all sinners stuff pushes them closer towards wanting to just give up and die or be consumed by the struggle.

There are Christians who were adulterers, fornicators, murderers, or liars, or thieves, or drug addicts; and some still struggle with impulses, because we are still trapped in these fleshly bodies (just as Paul indicated in Romans 7); but they've thrown off the title of their sin, and claimed the title of a saved child of God.

So what? A lot of them haven't because they are STILL dealing with it every day. Folks aren't any less saved because they call themselves an addicted Christian or a gay Christian.

There are no "homosexual Christians"; there are Christians who struggle with a sexual sin. If we agree that homosexuality is a sin, then let's call it sin; let's not water down our heritage as Christians by referring to ourselves or others as "sinning Christians" (labeling our sin with our title of "Christian").

There may not be any in your world or the prejudiced world of some churches, but in the real world there sure are. You want to call them one thing. It's their struggle and they refer to themselves as something else and the Church just needs to get over it.

And we do not agree that homosexuality is a sin unless we agree that heterosexuality is a sin too. Homosexual SEX is a sin just like heterosexual fornication is a sin. God spoke to homosexual sex ACTS. He did NOT speak to homosexuality.

Don, you, me and every other Christian is a sinning Christian. But like I said, that's our hangup. We've got to stop trying to push our hangups on the folks who are dealing with the struggles everyday and who don't give a rats ankle that they are still identifying as someone who struggles with a particular sin but is a Christian nonetheless.

 

[Zaac]

Low these many pages and we are right back at the beginning.

Thread title: How should christians treat the saved homosexual?

As long as they are truly saved, thus their hearts are indeed changed, they should be treated as any other sinner who has come to know our Lord.

-- If they are lost, in the spirit in which it is intended, the WHOLE of the Gospel should be taken to them. Both the love of God and the wrath of God. When He walked among us, He displayed both. When He died for us, as human beings we have no way to fully comprehend the extent of what He denied Himself to give us the ability, through the Holy Spirit, to deny ourselves of the pleasures of our sins. Scripture teaches us that we will not be tempted by satan beyond what we can endure.

-- If they are saved and are truly wrestling with satan's temptations, we are to do everything within our God given means to help them with their struggle. A drunkard may fall off the wagon and tie one on, as the old saying goes. When he awakes the next day, he should be ridden with guilt at his failure. Our responsibility is to help him put that behind him. Whether it's kneeling in prayer with him or offering encouragement to lift him up to try again to stay away from the bottle.

-- If a person professes to be saved and proclaims they have no intention of changing their sleeping arrangements the question is "How should Christians treat the saved homosexual?"

Rephrased: If a man declares that he is saved on Sunday morning and also declares that he intends to go out and get falling down drunk on Sunday evening, how should he be treated?

Should we, as professing Christians, warmly welcome him in love and ignore that he has no intention of repenting of his sinful behaviour? (Substitute any sin that you chose in this example. Anything from stealing paper clips from work to molesting a child.)

We are all children of God as He created us. When we accept Christ, we are adopted into a special family as brothers and sisters. IF another ACTUALLY comes into our family, don't we have a responsbility to both welcome them and council them on what is and isn't acceptable to our Father? If an act of sin was an abomination to God before the person was saved, isn't it also an abomination afterwards, if we willfully continue in that sin?

If we don't both welcome and instruct, then have we not also failed in the eyes of our Father?

:null:

The evangelical church needs to pause and look back just a few months ago at how the masses , while making all sorts of excuses for doing so,were supporting a man for President who was openly against Jesus Christ.

Christians are capable of willfully sinning and not recognizing it as sin. Sometimes it just takes time.

And like many didn't have a problem with that, these folks don't have a problem with referring to themselves as gay Christians or addicted Christians because they are still trying to cope with what they are dealing with.

 

[Don]

YOUR hangup, my friend, is that you don't recognize that unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality doesn't have terms for its acts. Heterosexuals can commit fornication or adultery; these are both clearly identified in scripture. The only scriptural term that is identified with homosexual acts is "abomination." And if we're hesitant to identify the sin as "homosexuality," then I can only imagine our level of reluctance at telling them they're committing abomination.

If you have a better term from scripture that identifies the act as sin (just as "fornication" and "adultery" identify sexual sins), please let us know.

If identifying sin as sin is being "prejudiced," I'm guilty as charged. If I refuse to condone living in sin, and advise others to not condone it or do it--in a spirit of meekness--is a "hang up," then I have a hang up I won't be letting go of.

The rich young ruler was lost to Christ because he wanted to continue living with his riches rather than forsaking everything and following Christ. Someone could have told him that it was okay, that it would be a struggle he'd have to deal with; but Jesus let him walk away instead.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

YOUR hangup, my friend, is that you don't recognize that unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality doesn't have terms for its acts. Heterosexuals can commit fornication or adultery; these are both clearly identified in scripture. The only scriptural term that is identified with homosexual acts is "abomination." And if we're hesitant to identify the sin as "homosexuality," then I can only imagine our level of reluctance at telling them they're committing abomination.

If you have a better term from scripture that identifies the act as sin (just as "fornication" and "adultery" identify sexual sins), please let us know.

If identifying sin as sin is being "prejudiced," I'm guilty as charged. If I refuse to condone living in sin, and advise others to not condone it or do it--in a spirit of meekness--is a "hang up," then I have a hang up I won't be letting go of.

The rich young ruler was lost to Christ because he wanted to continue living with his riches rather than forsaking everything and following Christ. Someone could have told him that it was okay, that it would be a struggle he'd have to deal with; but Jesus let him walk away instead.

Agreed .... :thumbsup:

 

[salzer mtn]

And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them,

26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

27And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

28For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?

29Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,

30Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

31Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

32Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.

33So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

34Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?

35It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. A HOMOSEXUAL NEEDS TO COUNT THE COST OF FOLLOWING JESUS BEFORE HE TAKES ON THE NAME CHRISTIAN. IF HE CAN'T HANDLE THE SEPERATION FROM HIS SIN, HE NEEDS TO BE HONEST AND QUIT TRYING TO DECIEVE HIMSELF AND OTHERS.

 

[12strings]

(Righteousdude):To say that you are a gay believer, or a homosexual Christian is to deny your heritage in Christ. Once you are saved, you are adopted into the family of God, by His blood, and when legally adopted, you now have the right to carry the last name of the adopting party! Why would you want to associate yourself with the old, when the new is now there to be identifed with????

I think some balance is need here, in that here can certainly be new, or immature Christians, who might refer to themselves as a Homosexual Christian, or an alchoholic Christian, or a racist Christian...while at the same time struggling against and fighting those sins...but wanting to be honest about his/her struggles.

However, I would say that while thier sentiment is good, they DO have some learning, maturing, and growing to do to LEARN that what you have said is very true...those things are no longer their IDENTITY...Christ is. They should not stay in that state of thinking/calling themselves to be homosexual Christian...but rather should eventually move to a place of calling themselves children of God, Christ-followers...who may struggle with a particular temptation.

Personally, I actually reject the AA paradigm that an alcoholic remains one for life...I think the Gospel is stronger than that...and that it is not necessary for a FORMER alcoholic to refer to themselves as an alchoholic the rest of their lives...they may always have the temptation to binge on beer, or it may be taken away competely...either way, Christ can change them from an alcoholic to a non-alcoholic.

The same CAN happen with homosexuals as well...they may not have thier desires go away immediately upon conversion...some may NEVER have them go away...some, by God's grace, will...and may go on to be married and have a family. Either way, they need not forever refer to themselves as a homosexual, but as a new creation.

 

[Zaac]

YOUR hangup, my friend, is that you don't recognize that unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality doesn't have terms for its acts.

I don't know how you came to THAT wrong conclusion.:laugh: I fully recognize that or else it would be foolish to try to explain to anyone struggling with homosexuality how God has ordained that sex be between one man and his one wife.:thumbsup:

Heterosexuals can commit fornication or adultery; these are both clearly identified in scripture. The only scriptural term that is identified with homosexual acts is "abomination."

So. Does that make it more of a sin than heterosexual fornication or adultery?

And if we're hesitant to identify the sin as "homosexuality," then I can only imagine our level of reluctance at telling them they're committing abomination.

I'm hesitant to refer to anything in a manner that GOD did not refer to it. According to Proverbs 8:7 wickedness is an abomination. What Biblically qualifies as wickedness?

If you have a better term from scripture that identifies the act as sin (just as "fornication" and "adultery" identify sexual sins), please let us know.

You like may are mixing apples and oranges. One minute you're saying homosexuality the next you're saying the act. Do you refer to heterosexuality as an act? There are heterosexual sex acts that are sinful. And homosexual sex acts are sinful. Neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality are sinful.

If identifying sin as sin is being "prejudiced," I'm guilty as charged. If I refuse to condone living in sin, and advise others to not condone it or do it--in a spirit of meekness--is a "hang up," then I have a hang up I won't be letting go of.

Now ain't nobody said nothing about not identifying sin as sin so come on down off that high horse. The prejudice and hangups lie in the fact that you and a lot of folks in the church keep saying that somebody can't be a homosexual Christian because YOU don't think they should be claiming that.

Again, that's your prejudice and your hangup. They claim it because they are still dealing with it. So whether or not you and others with the like prejudice don't think it's possible, it is.

King Solomon did all kinds of crazy things for years, yet no one seems to question whether or not he'll be in heaven.

The rich young ruler was lost to Christ because he wanted to continue living with his riches rather than forsaking everything and following Christ. Someone could have told him that it was okay, that it would be a struggle he'd have to deal with; but Jesus let him walk away instead.

The rich young ruler wasn't saved. We're talking about saved people.

 

[12strings]

It also might be helpful to mention that in scriptures, you can find MANY things that are called an "abomination." (There is at least one passage that lists 7).

 

[Zaac]

It also might be helpful to mention that in scriptures, you can find MANY things that are called an "abomination." (There is at least one passage that lists 7).

Sure does. And I don't recall any other time hearing anyone in the Church refer to that list of other things as an abomination when describing the sin.

It's as though we have to call this sin an abomination to emphasize the point of how bad we think it is because the homosexuals aren't listening to us and trying to force us to accept their sin.

 

[12strings]

It's as though we have to call this sin an abomination to emphasize the point of how bad we think it is because the homosexuals aren't listening to us and trying to force us to accept their sin.

Well, those things are true as well...most homosexuals ARE NOT listening to us, and they ARE trying to force us to accept their sin. Just as a show like "Whitney" tries to force us to accept that a 3-year "live-in" couple is just as acceptable as a married couple.

 

[Oldtimer]

The evangelical church needs to pause and look back just a few months ago at how the masses , while making all sorts of excuses for doing so,were supporting a man for President who was openly against Jesus Christ.

Christians are capable of willfully sinning and not recognizing it as sin. Sometimes it just takes time.

And like many didn't have a problem with that, these folks don't have a problem with referring to themselves as gay Christians or addicted Christians because they are still trying to cope with what they are dealing with.

We're not talking about "masses".
We're not talking about capabilities of Christians to sin.

We are talking about how an individual brother or sister, in Christ, is to react with/towards another person who professes to also be a brother or sister.

I do have a problem when a brother(?) or sister(?) proudly proclaims he or she will continue to live in a sin of choice. One who uses the term HATE towards another who instructs in ALL of the Gospel. One who wishes to instruct children that God approves of anything that isn't "traditional marriage" as God defines it. One who demands that government put a stamp of endorsement of their sin. One who marches in parades celebrating their sin. One who fills the coffers of those who support their sin, instead of dropping those coins in the hands of true widows and orphans.

I am a drunk and I'm proud of it. I'm saved and it's OK if I'm so drunk that I have to crawl through the pearly gates.

I am a murderer and I WILL continue to murder. I'm saved, so there's no need to turn away from more murder.

I am a sodomite, I practice witchery, I enjoy taking from others, I am greedy, I am mighty proud of being proudful, I take special pleasures with children, I will continue to cheat on my wife, I will continue to ....................

I wear my label proudly for all to see. You cannot and will not tell me that I'm wrong. I know that God loves me, that's all that matters. I will not lose my place in heaven, no matter how often I do what I want to do in this life.

--

I am a sinner saved by the grace of God. Kneeling in awe of what He sacrificed so that I can be with Him in eternity. When I stumble and fall, and I do, it is my hope that A brother or sister will extend their hand. A hand extended in both love and correction. I pray that I will always humbly acknowledge my failure and graciously accept their hand, If I don't, then I'm no different than a defiant 3 year old stomping my foot in protest. At a time I should be begging forgiveness from my Father for my failure.

 

[Zaac]

Well, those things are true as well...most homosexuals ARE NOT listening to us, and they ARE trying to force us to accept their sin. Just as a show like "Whitney" tries to force us to accept that a 3-year "live-in" couple is just as acceptable as a married couple.

Of course they are. When you feel like the world is coming at you sideways, you respond in kind.

But the Body of Christ should not be responding that way. When we start saying abomination, they think one image:

 

[Zaac]

We're not talking about "masses".
We're not talking about capabilities of Christians to sin.

We are talking about how an individual brother or sister, in Christ, is to react with/towards another person who professes to also be a brother or sister.

I do have a problem when a brother(?) or sister(?) proudly proclaims he or she will continue to live in a sin of choice.

OT, that's a bit different and the Bible gives how they are to be dealt with inside the Church CORPORATELY.

One who uses the term HATE towards another who instructs in ALL of the Gospel. One who wishes to instruct children that God approves of anything that isn't "traditional marriage" as God defines it. One who demands that government put a stamp of endorsement of their sin. One who marches in parades celebrating their sin. One who fills the coffers of those who support their sin, instead of dropping those coins in the hands of true widows and orphans.

Again, Scripture says how to deal with such a brother.

I am a drunk and I'm proud of it. I'm saved and it's OK if I'm so drunk that I have to crawl through the pearly gates.

I am a murderer and I WILL continue to murder. I'm saved, so there's no need to turn away from more murder.

I am a sodomite, I practice witchery, I enjoy taking from others, I am greedy, I am mighty proud of being proudful, I take special pleasures with children, I will continue to cheat on my wife, I will continue to ....................

I wear my label proudly for all to see. You cannot and will not tell me that I'm wrong. I know that God loves me, that's all that matters. I will not lose my place in heaven, no matter how often I do what I want to do in this life.

--

How about "I'm a self-righteous Christian who does right when I'm at Church in front of everyone, but away from the eyes of the Church, I'm a different person?"

or how about "I can stand and make a lot of noise about homosexuality but don't have a a problem with the heterosexual fornication on tv or in movies?"

 

[12strings]

Of course they are. When you feel like the world is coming at you sideways, you respond in kind.

But the Body of Christ should not be responding that way. When we start saying abomination, they think one image:

1. I don't think it's in any way provable that the church's rejection of homosexuality has CAUSED the increase in pushing for the acceptance of homosexual acceptance...it is simply part of cultural degeneration that is pushing for the acceptance of nearly EVERY sin.

2. Of course we should use language wisely, considering each situation...however even you said...

I'm hesitant to refer to anything in a manner that GOD did not refer to it.

So if we are going to speak about any sin in the way God speaks about it, the word "abomination" cannot be thrown out completely. In a similar way, speaking of drunkenness to an "alchoholic" can help them see that their sin is not merely a disease, but a sinful choice.

3. I actually suspect that even most secularists recognize that Westboro Baptist Church is a small sect of Christianity, and that it is NOT representative of the whole.

 

[Oldtimer]

Of course they are. When you feel like the world is coming at you sideways, you respond in kind.

But the Body of Christ should not be responding that way. When we start saying abomination, they think one image:

(image link omitted)

As usual, the extreme is used to label all.

I don't know of a single member of my church who would pick up one of those signs. I not saying there isn't anyone there, as I don't know what's in the hearts of all who attend. However, I believe the vast majority would not.

This is no different from saying that all Baptists hold the same viewpoint of Westboro (believe that's the name of the group dishonoring our fallen servicemen).

It seems that some fail to see that holding up the extreme as an example of all is doing exactly what they say they are against when working with the lost. Why would I promote any image that is contrary to what I believe? Those I am trying to reach are seeing me holding that sign, as well, as if I were on that street corner.

They are "seeing" what I've chosen to show, even if my words are telling them "God loves you. Give Him a chance to work in your life.".

 

[Zaac]

As usual, the extreme is used to label all.

I don't know of a single member of my church who would pick up one of those signs. I not saying there isn't anyone there, as I don't know what's in the hearts of all who attend. However, I believe the vast majority would not.

This is no different from saying that all Baptists hold the same viewpoint of Westboro (believe that's the name of the group dishonoring our fallen servicemen).

It seems that some fail to see that holding up the extreme as an example of all is doing exactly what they say they are against when working with the lost. Why would I promote any image that is contrary to what I believe? Those I am trying to reach are seeing me holding that sign, as well, as if I were on that street corner.

They are "seeing" what I've chosen to show, even if my words are telling them "God loves you. Give Him a chance to work in your life.".

As usual, the Church misses the point. When all they ever hear from the Church is "you're an abomination---not the sin, but you", or that "you're the worst of the worst", you don't have to hold up a sign. The association is made.

The only difference between what a lot of the Church does and what Fred Phelps and family do is that the Phelps group holds up signs.

 

[Zaac]

1. I don't think it's in any way provable that the church's rejection of homosexuality has CAUSED the increase in pushing for the acceptance of homosexual acceptance...it is simply part of cultural degeneration that is pushing for the acceptance of nearly EVERY sin.

The cultural degeneration is taking place because of practices of the Church that cause the power of the Holy Spirit to almost be impotent in them.

Our unrepentant sin causes us to not be able to influence the culture the way we should.

If something is morally afoul in the world, I would venture that you can ALWAYS trace it right back to the Church.

2. Of course we should use language wisely, considering each situation...however even you said...

I was referring to calling homosexuality a sin. God does not refer to homosexuality, but rather to homosexual sex acts as sinful.

So if we are going to speak about any sin in the way God speaks about it, the word "abomination" cannot be thrown out completely. In a similar way, speaking of drunkenness to an "alchoholic" can help them see that their sin is not merely a disease, but a sinful choice.

I never said to throw it out. It's the manner in which it is being used.

3. I actually suspect that even most secularists recognize that Westboro Baptist Church is a small sect of Christianity, and that it is NOT representative of the whole.

The sentiment expressed by the Westboro Church is the same sentiment that gays view as coming from the Church as a whole. And when we start treating folks like modern day lepers, they have no reason to think otherwise.

 

[12strings]

If something is morally afoul in the world, I would venture that you can ALWAYS trace it right back to the Church.

Is there scripture to support this?

I was referring to calling homosexuality a sin. God does not refer to homosexuality, but rather to homosexual sex acts as sinful.

God does refer to homosexuals as a noun, and as the act.
...Leviticus & Romans speak of a man lying with a man. (an act).

1 Corinthians & 1 Timothy both use the word Homosexual as a noun.

1 Cor. 6:9 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals... (Greek is one word, a noun, refering to those who do the act).

It's simple really, God condemns both the act of lying, and liars...he condemns both the act of stealing, and thieves. He condemns both the act of homosexuality, and homosexuals (defined as those who practice the act). To say otherwise to reject the biblical testimony.

He also extends grace to redeem all of those ("and such WERE some of you").