LGBTQ Community Gets Evangelist Franklin Graham Event Ads Pulled In The UK

[Reynolds]

I'm not here on this thread to argue whether the Bible does or does not condemn same-sex sexual relationships but, rather, whether focussing on this should be a part of preaching the Gospel and thus the preserve of the evangelist (rather than, say, a pastor or teacher) in the Church. I suspect you and I therefore agree

Considering you don't know how to properly quote,I do not know who you are addressing. I can assure you I don't agree with you on anything.

 

[Matt Black]

Ok, rip part of The Bible out and throw it away.....

Now who's defaming whom here?

 

[Matt Black]

Considering you don't know how to properly quote,I do not know who you are addressing. I can assure you I don't agree with you on anything.

I know how to quote. My post referred to by you was directly after Martin's and it was therefore obvious I was replying to him

 

[Matt Black]

I thought "Turn from your sin and repent" is the classical message of the evangelist. Education on what sin is definitely falls under this heading.

Depends on how specific you get and whether your audience agree with you as to whether a specific activity is sinful or not. If Person A believed Activity X isn't a sin, then an evangelist banging on about how Activity X is sinful and those who commit it are Hell-bound spawn of Satan isn't exactly going to win hearts and minds, short of course of a miracle to conversion by the Holy Spirit. For example, a Baptist Minister of my acquaintance stands in the tradition of Baptist pacifism in Wales. He believes that gun ownership is a sin. If however he uses that as a focus of his Gospel message at, say, an NRA convention or indeed many places in the rural US, I don't think he's going to get many conversions...

 

[Reynolds]

Now who's defaming whom here?

Funny. Ridiculously funny.

 

[Reynolds]

I know how to quote. My post referred to by you was directly after Martin's and it was therefore obvious I was replying to him

Not really.

 

[Matt Black]

In what way?

 

[Reynolds]

Depends on how specific you get and whether your audience agree with you as to whether a specific activity is sinful or not. If Person A believed Activity X isn't a sin, then an evangelist banging on about how Activity X is sinful and those who commit it are Hell-bound spawn of Satan isn't exactly going to win hearts and minds, short of course of a miracle to conversion by the Holy Spirit. For example, a Baptist Minister of my acquaintance stands in the tradition of Baptist pacifism in Wales. He believes that gun ownership is a sin. If however he uses that as a focus of his Gospel message at, say, an NRA convention or indeed many places in the rural US, I don't think he's going to get many conversions...

The Bible is clear that homosexuality is abomination. Jesus told his disciples to purchase a sword. Your pastor friend is wrong.

 

[Matt Black]

<Huge shrug of indifference> And he'd say you're wrong, quoting the same Bible.

Now what?

 

[carpro]

No, please re-read what I put both on this page and the first: I said from my second post on this thread that evangelists should stick to the Gospel....and then gone on to expand on what is and is not the Gospel

If your version of the gospel doesn't cover the consequences of sins such as homosexual acts, what good is it? Mine covers it. Why doesn't yours?

 

[Matt Black]

Pacifism was the default position of early Christianity up until Constantine. It also seems to have been the original Anabaptist/ Baptist position:

https://pilgrimpathways.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/100-baptist-pacifists-1-25/

Interesting to see Spurgeon mentioned in despatched there...

[ETA: further reply to Reynolds....just to clarify for him]

 

[Matt Black]

If your version of the gospel doesn't cover the consequences of sins such as homosexual acts, what good is it? Mine covers it. Why doesn't yours?

I would turn that round and ask why your version focusses on homosexual sins and not others such as greed, gossip, obesity, damaging God's Creation, etc?

 

[Matt Black]

But, sure, if you want to get all 18th century and brimstone on people, knock yourself out, kiddo:

https://babylonbee.com/news/church-...ners-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-god-themed-vbs/

 

[carpro]

I would turn that round and ask why your version focusses on homosexual sins and not others such as greed, gossip, obesity, damaging God's Creation, etc?

No, you can't turn it around. Because it doesn't "FOCUS" on homosexual sins. Neither does it ignore them.

What's happening among some so called Christians is an effort to distort God's word to excuse and legitimize sins they want to commit and will not repent of.

It won't work. But it makes me wonder which one is next.

 

[Matt Black]

So would your Gospel to, say, merchant bankers, warn them of the dangers of greed? Would your preach to oil company execs excoriate them for harming God's Creation? Would your evangelization of tax accountants who find loopholes for their rich clients to duck out of paying their fair share of taxes condemn them for not providing for the poor?

My question: why the obsession with sex?

 

[carpro]

But, sure, if you want to get all 18th century and brimstone on people, knock yourself out, kiddo:

That's just another well worn excuse not to preach the Bible.

It does no good to encourage people to chart a path for heaven if we don't tell them how to get there. They can't do it alone and they can't do it without Christ, who didn't hesitate to state the consequences of sin.

 

[carpro]

So would your Gospel to, say, merchant bankers, warn them of the dangers of greed? Would your preach to oil company execs excoriate them for harming God's Creation? Would your evangelization of tax accountants who find loopholes for their rich clients to duck out of paying their fair share of taxes condemn them for not providing for the poor?

My question: why the obsession with sex?

None of which is worth a reply.

But I will say this: it is evident to me that you want to turn one sin into a non sin to meet your own social agenda.

And I can tell you with authority that it won't work and never has.

 

[Matt Black]

That's just another well worn excuse not to preach the Bible.

It does no good to encourage people to chart a path for heaven if we don't tell them how to get there. They can't do it alone and they can't do it without Christ, who didn't hesitate to state the consequences of sin.

And you can't do it by a false gospel of works. It is Christ, and Him alone through His grace alone which saves

 

[Matt Black]

None of which is worth a reply.

But I will say this: it is evident to me that you want to turn one sin into a non sin to meet your own social agenda.

And I can tell you with authority that it won't work and never has.

Whereas you want to turn several sins into non-sins by not replying...and that dog definitely won't hunt.

 

[Matt Black]

Look, another analogy to try to help: I believe all non-Christian religions including Islam are false and heretical. But I'm not going to win many Muslims by picketing the local mosque and haranguing them with shouts of "You're all going to Hell, you mad Muzzie moronic Muppets!"

 

[carpro]

Whereas you want to turn several sins into non-sins by not replying...and that dog definitely won't hunt.

Another response pulled out of thin air.

Be that as it may, I'm done here. Just can't seem to convince you that homosexual acts are sinful, both in the old and the new testament and part of the gospel. The good news (gospel) is that those sins can be forgiven. But like all sins, forgiveness has to be asked for and one must repent. If forgiveness is asked for with the full intent of continuing to commit that sin, all bets are off.

Maybe someone else can explain it better.