If certain "Baptists" don't believe the Bible is God's Holy Word,

[Norm]

Originally posted by TomVols:
WARNING: personal attacks are a violation of BB rules. This is a warning. Next step is dealing with persons guilty subject to BB rules. In other words, let's be more mature about this, okay? Play nice....

Hello, TomVols. You are not suggesting that I am personally attacking anyone, I hope. Could you clarify your post a bit more? Thanks.

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by Justified:
Who spoke the red letters in the Bible?

The red letters are Jesus's words, are they not?

Isn't "ALL" scripture the inspired Word of God?

And who is the Word of God?

So Scripture and Jesus are inseparatable!

It isn't that simple. To say that Christ is the Logos of God is not tsay that Jesus and the Bible ar ethe same thing. Surely they are related, in that they both reveal the Father. But they are not the same thing.

Are all the words in the Bible the words of God? No. Satan speaks in Job. Those are not God's words. They neevertheless are God's Word in that they help reveal God to us.
BTW, the word is "inseparable". Not "inseperatable".

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by SheEagle911:
I didn't ask for published argumentation. I asked you and those who take your position to cite Scriptures, Chapters, and Verses, please.

Acts 16:30... "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..."

You seem to want it to say... "Believe in the Lord Jesus, And you will be saved, unless you are a homosexual.

We are saved by our belief in the resurrection of Jesus, not what sex orientation we are or by how much we eat, or drink, nor how much we gossip, watch TV, or daydream.

[ September 02, 2002, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Justified:
Who spoke the red letters in the Bible?

The red letters are Jesus's words, are they not?

The red letters are one person's opinion of the words of Jesus. Personally, I don't use a red letter edition because it tends to color my objectivity toward the text. For instance, in the Gospel of John it is not always clear if Jesus is speaking or if John is making comments regarding the previous statements of Jesus. Either way, both what John and Jesus say is truth so it is all profitable for believers but interpretation sometimes gets tricky.

Isn't "ALL" scripture the inspired Word of God?

All scripture is *given* by the inspiration (breath) of God.

And who is the Word of God?

You just jumped the track. This is a different concept. Following your logic, the Bible became flesh and dwelt among us! (John 1:14) Jesus is not the Bible. The Bible is not Jesus.

So Scripture and Jesus are inseparatable!

Not at all.

But I will say that the scripture, accurately interpreted, does not contradict Jesus. Jesus is the criterion by which the Bible is to be judged.

 

[LadyEagle]

You seem to want it to say... "Believe in the Lord Jesus, And you will be saved, unless you are a homosexual.

Now post-it you are reading more into it than was there. Correct interpretation would be: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Go and sin no more."

Also, since I started this thread, I am asking the moderator to shut it down. Enough has been said, IMO.

[ September 02, 2002, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: SheEagle911 ]

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:

But I will say that the scripture, accurately interpreted, does not contradict Jesus. Jesus is the criterion by which the Bible is to be judged.

[/QB]

Isn't that the same kind of logic that started the Mormon movement? The Word was God and the Word is God. In my opinion your view above will lead some people to believe that Jesus may speak to someone today and supersede his word, this is false.
Murph

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Baptist Believer:

But I will say that the scripture, accurately interpreted, does not contradict Jesus. Jesus is the criterion by which the Bible is to be judged.

Isn't that the same kind of logic that started the Mormon movement?[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]No.

The Word was God and the Word is God.

Yes. Jesus (The Word - "logos" in Greek) was God and Jesus (The Word - "logos" in Greek) is God. These verses have nothing to do with scripture. I certainly hope you as a pastor know that! As I've pointed out several times here, the context of the verses clearly indicates that John is *not* talking about the Bible. The Bible did not become flesh and dwell among us (John 1:14). The Bible is not God.

In my opinion your view above will lead some people to believe that Jesus may speak to someone today and supersede his word, this is false.

While you certainly have the right to your opinion, I throughly believe you are incorrect. But I will say that I want to change a word in that statement that may bring us both into agreement. Instead of saying that "Jesus is the criterion by which the Bible is to be judged", let me say that "Jesus is the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted". Jesus is the supreme interpreter of the scripture and the paragon of application. Jesus will not contradict the revelation already given.

[ September 02, 2002, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

[Bible-belted]

" In my opinion your view above will lead some people to believe that Jesus may speak to someone today and supersede his word, this is false."

I don't think anyone is arguing for that.

Nevertheless we must be careful. I am reminded of a story I read wherein Jesus comes to a small town, and the pastor attempts top treat him as he thinks Jesus should be. Suffice it to say that Jesus doesn't act like the pastor thinks He should. The pastr finally let's his frustration bubble over after Jesus rebukes him for interupting a discussion He is having with someone so a bunch of kids can talk to Jesus. The pastor gets out his Bible and is all set to quote Scripture to Jesus ("suffer the little children") when Jesus takes the Bible from him and hands it back to the pastor, saying: "That's written for YOU."

It is a good point. As long as we are not talking about contradictions we should still be able to affirm that we cannot predict or control or otherwise limit Jesus with the Scriptures.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by SheEagle911:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You seem to want it to say... "Believe in the Lord Jesus, And you will be saved, unless you are a homosexual.

Now post-it you are reading more into it than was there. Correct interpretation would be: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Go and sin no more."

</font>[/QUOTE]That's funny, "go and sin no more" is not part of that verse. To become a saved Christian, believing is the only requirement. That means homosexuals can be saved Christians simply by doing as the Bible instructs. Believe period!

Sin is something a Christian works on after they are saved, not before.

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by post-it:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SheEagle911:
I didn't ask for published argumentation. I asked you and those who take your position to cite Scriptures, Chapters, and Verses, please.

Acts 16:30... "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..."

You seem to want it to say... "Believe in the Lord Jesus, And you will be saved, unless you are a homosexual.

We are saved by our belief in the resurrection of Jesus, not what sex orientation we are or by how much we eat, or drink, nor how much we gossip, watch TV, or daydream.</font>[/QUOTE]Hi, post it:

I believe tht you may be missing part of what salvation is, MAYBE! You indicated that to believe in Jesus was all that was required, may be wrong here, so correct me if I am wrong. The way I say believing to be is thus: To accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior AND repent of you sins. Now sins here, at first, would fall into the category of what I would call major sins such as murder, rape, adultry, robbery AND Homosexuality. Also GOSSIP is mentioned a being very bad and I guess we are all guilty of that at one time or another but this in itself, doesn't give Homos a green light. I don't think anyone has said that a Homo can't be saved BUT evidence of his salvation would be to become a NORMAL man and to QUIT his Homo lifestyle. After a proper amount of time, at least within a few months OR less, he should have changed. YES, he can fall back into this but IF he is a true Christian, guilt by the Holy Spirit would convict him and he would again quit and should STAY as a NORMAL man. There are a lot of other sins that I categorize as lesser sins, if that is possible. These deal with eating, drinking, anger, hate, etc.

I don't see how you can accept their lifestyle as being anywhere right. It is clearly stated in the scriptures that man is not to lay with man, nor woman with woman.

This is straying from the main topic, though.

God Bless..........Alex

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Alex:
Hi, post it:

I believe tht you may be missing part of what salvation is, MAYBE! You indicated that to believe in Jesus was all that was required, may be wrong here, so correct me if I am wrong. The way I say believing to be is thus: To accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior AND repent of you sins. Now sins here, at first, would fall into the category of what I would call major sins such as murder, rape, adultry, robbery AND Homosexuality. God Bless..........Alex

[/QB]

To turn from sin is a code of conduct that we do after we are saved. The acutal criteria of being saved can't have anything to do with "works". We are saved by our faith in the resurection of Jesus and acceptance that he is God.

Paul says we are not under the law of sin, nor can sin be counted against us. However we "should" not sin. That we shouldn't want to sin.

Let's look exactly at what scripture says about the homosexual issue an see if it falls under the same light you and most people think it does.

"effeminate" we will assume means homosexual.

1 Corinthians 6
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Most people fly right by the key phrase "the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom" The list of types of behaviour that is typical of the unrighteous is then given. Does this mean that righteous people who happen to be effeminate will not inherit the kingdom, no it means the unrighteous effeminate will not.

So that leads us to examine what righteous means and then the following meanings of words such as "moral" which make up being righteous. At the core you will find that knowing right from wrong is what it boils down to. And we know what is right and wrong by what our heart tells us is right or wrong after we are saved (Holy Spirit).

There are behaviors of both homosexuals and heterosexual that are wrong and those that are right.

There are theives in this same list that are the same Christians who cheat a little on their tax returns, that don't give the amount of tithe they know their heart is telling them to give. But if sin is now written on our hearts, and the homosexual doesn't have a heart message from the Holy Spirit saying it is wrong, then it can't be wrong.

The tax cheat is wrong, the gossiper is wrong, because their own heart convicts them, not the Bible, not the Church. If a homosexual or a heterosexual goes from affair to affair, commits adultry etc. then it is sin and they are not righteous. They are sinning. When these passages were written, it might have been the norm for gays to be postitutes or fornicators, but now a gay man can find and be in a long term marriage and protected under the law and evil behaviour is not the norm any longer.

Times change and so do sins. Eating pig was a sin at one time, now it isn't.

[ September 04, 2002, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[Bible-belted]

"Times change and so do sins. Eating pig was a sin at one time, now it isn't."

Except there is no evidence that homosexuality is any les a sin in the NT than in the OT.

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Latreia:
"Times change and so do sins. Eating pig was a sin at one time, now it isn't."

Except there is no evidence that homosexuality is any les a sin in the NT than in the OT.

Good post Latreia thanks.
Murph

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Latreia:
"Times change and so do sins. Eating pig was a sin at one time, now it isn't."

Except there is no evidence that homosexuality is any les a sin in the NT than in the OT.

A righteous homosexual is evidence that it has changed. A righteous homosexual is a saved Christian living with no more sin than any other righteous Christian. I know you missed that point in my last post so I'm spelling it out for you here. Jesus would never turn his back on a saved righteous Christian homosexual or heterosexual.

 

[Graceforever]

Originally posted by post-it:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Latreia:
"Times change and so do sins. Eating pig was a sin at one time, now it isn't."

Except there is no evidence that homosexuality is any les a sin in the NT than in the OT.

A righteous homosexual is evidence that it has changed. A righteous homosexual is a saved Christian living with no more sin than any other righteous Christian. I know you missed that point in my last post so I'm spelling it out for you here. Jesus would never turn his back on a saved righteous Christian homosexual or heterosexual.</font>[/QUOTE]John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.
22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.
23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

 

[Graceforever]

Originally posted by post-it:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Latreia:
"Times change and so do sins. Eating pig was a sin at one time, now it isn't."

Except there is no evidence that homosexuality is any les a sin in the NT than in the OT.

A righteous homosexual is evidence that it has changed. A righteous homosexual is a saved Christian living with no more sin than any other righteous Christian. I know you missed that point in my last post so I'm spelling it out for you here. Jesus would never turn his back on a saved righteous Christian homosexual or heterosexual.</font>[/QUOTE]I suppose we should just throw the “go and sin no more” verse right out of the Bible…. Is that correct postit? What about these verse below? Is this another part of the Bible that is wrongly interpreted?….

12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.

 

[Bible-belted]

"A righteous homosexual is evidence that it has changed. A righteous homosexual is a saved Christian living with no more sin than any other righteous Christian. I know you missed that point in my last post so I'm spelling it out for you here. [[Frown]] Jesus would never turn his back on a saved righteous Christian homosexual or heterosexual."

That's funny post!

Seriously though, think about what you are saying: Is a righteous pedophile evidence that pedophilia is not a sin? Is a righteous murderer evidence that murder is not a sin? Is a righteous adulterer evidence that adultery is not a sin?

Come on!

To comment on some specifcs:

"A righteous homosexual is a saved Christian living with no more sin than any other righteous Christian."

No more IMPUTED sin, no. At the judgment, God looks at a justified person and sees Christ's imputed righteousness no matter what sins were imputed to Christ on the Cross.

But that doesn't make those sins suddenly righteous acts. They are still sins, atoned for on the Cross. Atoned for is not "baptised" or "sanctified". Sins were not made holy on the Cross, they were atoned for because they were (and are) NOT holy and righteous acts.

The fact remains that homosexual activity was and is a sin, and homosexual orientation remains evidence of the Fall. Priase God that when all things are renewed and restored at the Parousia homosexuality will no longer exist. In Heaven there are no homosexuals. Just homosexuals who have changed into heterosexuals. In this life we are, through Christ, set fre from the penalty and the power of sin. In the eschaton we will be free from its presence as well. I belive that the orinetation of homosexuality, evidence of a Fall that will have been fully reversed, will disappear and not be present in the eschaton.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Graceforever:
I suppose we should just throw the “go and sin no more” verse right out of the Bible…. Is that correct postit? What about these verse below? Is this another part of the Bible that is wrongly interpreted?….

You didn't read the post did you? I never said we are able to sin at will. I said Becoming saved done on the belief and acceptance of what Jesus did for us on the cross. It is accepting this gift that saves us. That is was establishes we are saved. Then aftewards we work on not sinning.

Slow down and read it again. I hate it when people disagree with me just because they see the name, Post-It!

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Latreia:

Seriously though, think about what you are saying: Is a righteous pedophile evidence that pedophilia is not a sin? Is a righteous murderer evidence that murder is not a sin? Is a righteous adulterer evidence that adultery is not a sin?

There is a difference between homosexuality and pedophililia or a murderer, the latter acts hurt other people.

Only if the homosexual act is done as prostitution, it also hurts other people. If it were done with married men, it would hurt other people, but a loving relationship between two people, hurts no one.

There are circumstances where an act is a sin and circumstances where it is not a sin. Intent has everything to do with it. Lets look a a Thief. It is a sin unless the thief is an agent for the US and his job is to steal documents from Iraq. Then the thief is a hero and not a sinner. Murder is a sin unless the person being murdered is Saddam Hussein, then it is a reason for celebration and not a sin. Intent is everything, right and wrong is everything, morals are everything in determining sin, the Holy Spirit is the final say to the individual on what is sin and is not.

You, nor the Church are in the equation, the church may only decide which sinners and which sins it allows to be members, not Christians. Thank God!

A sin is not always a sin. The heart has everything to do with determining when a sin is a sin. A loving homosexual marriage relationship can't be sin.

[ September 05, 2002, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[Bible-belted]

"There is a difference between homosexuality and pedophililia or a murderer, the latter acts hurt other people."

But now you are making a differnet argument. You are shifting the ground. Will you or will you not admit that righteousness does not baptise one's sinful behaviour?

You cannpt justify one questionable assertion with another. A series of improbable statements don't add up to a probable one. Just the opposite.

Yours is a common tactic. Shift the grounds for discussion whenever you can't stand on the ground you occupy.

I argue though that homosexual activity does hurt some one. Your frame of reference is too small. Homosexual activity is a sin, and all sin is against God and "hurts" Him.

"Only if the homosexual act is done as prostitution, it also hurts other people. If it were done with married men, it would hurt other people, but a loving relationship between two people, hurts no one."

First, what if prostitution is done with a single person? No harm no foul? Simple business transaction? Are you prepared to baptise prostitution?

Second, you are essentially arguing for love as the determining factor. But Jesus says that if we love HIM, we will keep his commandmnents. Paul wrote that love is th e fulfillment (not the breaking) of the law. How can love then make a sin not sinful? It can't. If we love God we will sin less, not more, and we will keep the commands of God, not break them. Again, your frame of reference is too small.

Third, there is no biblical support for your assertion. I am aware of Scroggs and the like. The arguments are vain attempts to avoid the obvious.

" Intent has everything to do with it."

Yes. If a man intends to lie with another man as he should a woman he sins for he desires a wicked thing, an abominable thing, int he eyes of God. Sure, inent to sin is a factor in sinning. Tautology.

" loving homosexual marriage relationship can't be sin."

You can say it all you want. It still won't be true. homosexual activity is a sin. The orientation is evidence of the falleneness of humanity. Praise God that he will pruify this world of all iniquity.