Not a Real Christian, etc.

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Why are we so focused on homosexuality, which, for the vast majority of us, is not found within our church, and yet we remain so silent as a group on divorce, adultery, pre-marital sex, pornography, and so on - all of which are sexual sins that happen with our congregants everyday? Why focus on homosexuality and leave these four mostly silent?

Maybe you need a new church??? Churches I know of are preaching against all of these, more than homosexuality because these are the things we face. </font>[/QUOTE]Open up the Florida Baptist Witness. Read the minutes from the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting. See what the emphases have been for the last five years. I do know that there are a few churches who are "getting it right," but the vast majority that I've seen don't, and I have been exposed to a good number of churches so far in my life.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Open up the Florida Baptist Witness. Read the minutes from the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting. See what the emphases have been for the last five years. I do know that there are a few churches who are "getting it right," but the vast majority that I've seen don't, and I have been exposed to a good number of churches so far in my life.

Not being a Southern Baptist, I have no idea. All I know is that the churches I am familiar with are not anything like what you have mentioned.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Not being a Southern Baptist, I have no idea. All I know is that the churches I am familiar with are not anything like what you have mentioned. [/QB]

Hang out with the Southern Baptists for awhile. You'll see what I mean.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Helen:
A person may be born with homosexual tendencies (I don't know if this is true, but it may be), but does not BECOME a homosexual until he gives in to them. Homosexuality is an identity.

That's not the case. A person born with homosexual tendenceis would be a homosexual. What you do with your private parts does not make you a homo/hetero sexual, it only describes your sexual activity. A heterosexual man who has sex with a man is no more homosexual than a homosexual man who has sex with a woman.

The Bible is specific to the sexual activity, but not to the way a person is born (assuming for the sake of arguement that a person is born that way).

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Helen:
A person may be born with homosexual tendencies (I don't know if this is true, but it may be), but does not BECOME a homosexual until he gives in to them. Homosexuality is an identity.

I am 24, and soon to be engaged to a wonderful girl. I have never had sex - either with a man or a woman. Amd I not heterosexual?

 

[dianetavegia]

Uh... I'm Southern Baptist and these things are preached on all the time! In fact, pastor takes a lot of criticism over his strong stand against SIN.

we remain so silent as a group on divorce, adultery, pre-marital sex, pornography, and so on -

Not in MY church!

Scott, my high school boyfriend has a son in his mid 20's who is also a virgin. However, my friend's son struggles with lust for other men and dreams/ desires other men. He's a Christian and refuses to act on those feelings and has asked his church for help and prayers. I think your analogy was off the wall... certainly you look forward to your wedding night.

Diane

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
Scott, my high school boyfriend has a son in his mid 20's who is also a virgin. However, my friend's son struggles with lust for other men and dreams/ desires other men. He's a Christian and refuses to act on those feelings and has asked his church for help and prayers. I think your analogy was off the wall... certainly you look forward to your wedding night.

I neither struggle with lust or feelings for other men. I know who I am attracted to. However, according to Helen's analogy, a homosexual isn't a homosexual until he has sex. Why is a heterosexual not a heterosexual until he has sex? (according to her definition)

 

[aefting]

Matthew 15:18-19 ESV
But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

Based on these verses, I would say that a man murders because he is a murderer, he commits adultery because he is an adulterer, he steals because he is a thief, etc. Evil actions flow out of a wicked heart.

Andy

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by aefting:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Matthew 15:18-19 ESV
But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

Based on these verses, I would say that a man murders because he is a murderer, he commits adultery because he is an adulterer, he steals because he is a thief, etc. Evil actions flow out of a wicked heart.

Andy </font>[/QUOTE]As a Christian, have you:

Ever lied?
Ever been angry (which to Christ is the same as murder?)
Ever slandered someone else?
Ever had a dirty thought?

If the answer is "yes," how do we reconcile this verse with Christianity, whereby Christ gives us a new heart?

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
As a Christian, have you:

Ever lied?
Ever been angry (which to Christ is the same as murder?)
Ever slandered someone else?
Ever had a dirty thought?

If the answer is "yes," how do we reconcile this verse with Christianity, whereby Christ gives us a new heart?

It is not a true believer's perfection that proves our salvation (all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God) but rather our hating our imperfections and seeking, with God’s help and power, to correct them. In his inmost heart, the genuine Christian longs to speak and do only those things that are holy, pure, loving, honest, truthful, and upright, things that are uncorrupted and unstained by the world. The problem is that our conscience is damaged (from the original sin/fall). It is not the absense of sin in a believer's life (although there should be a significant improvement over the course of time), but an inclination of the heart gravitating toward righteous living rather than sinful living. The realism that sin continues to exist in the life of a believer testifies to the power of Satan, the Prince of this world (appointed by God), on our damaged conscience, and mankind's fallen inherited sinful nature.

 

[aefting]

As a Christian, have you:

Ever lied?
Ever been angry (which to Christ is the same as murder?)
Ever slandered someone else?
Ever had a dirty thought?

If the answer is "yes," how do we reconcile this verse with Christianity, whereby Christ gives us a new heart?

Well, I still have an old, sin nature.

Andy

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by aefting:
Well, I still have an old, sin nature.

Andy [/QB]

But you just said before that: "Based on these verses, I would say that a man murders because he is a murderer, he commits adultery because he is an adulterer, he steals because he is a thief, etc. Evil actions flow out of a wicked heart."

Do Christians have wicked hearts?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by John Wells:
It is not a true believer's perfection that proves our salvation (all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God) but rather our hating our imperfections and seeking, with God’s help and power, to correct them.

And sometimes, they don't get corrected. Even Billy Graham admits that he sins daily.

In his inmost heart, the genuine Christian longs to speak and do only those things that are holy, pure, loving, honest, truthful, and upright, things that are uncorrupted and unstained by the world.

Not all the time, though. If we truly longed to do these things, why don't we do it. Why is it that I have never found a person who went even one day without sinning (unless they slept for 24 hours!)?

The problem is that our conscience is damaged (from the original sin/fall). It is not the absense of sin in a believer's life (although there should be a significant improvement over the course of time), but an inclination of the heart gravitating toward righteous living rather than sinful living.

Now this is closer than your last statement.

The realism that sin continues to exist in the life of a believer testifies to the power of Satan, the Prince of this world (appointed by God), on our damaged conscience, and mankind's fallen inherited sinful nature.

And that sin can take the form of homosexuality, lust, anger, or not serving God. It's all sin, and it's all stuff that people struggle to get a hold of in the Christian walk.

 

[LadyEagle]

I am still waiting for an answer to my question to Josh on page 1:

Joshua, you stated:

One other note. I do believe that we are to be tranformed and separate from the world.

In what way? Separation from what? Transformation from what to what? In what ways do you preach/teach we are to be separate from the world? In what ways are we to be transformed?

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:

Now this is closer than your last statement.

Closer to what, Scott? You have just faulted the words of Dr. John MacArthur (paraphrased). You should lose your know-it-all attitude, which doesn't become a Christian!

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by John Wells:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:

Now this is closer than your last statement.

Closer to what, Scott? You have just faulted the words of Dr. John MacArthur (paraphrased). You should lose your know-it-all attitude, which doesn't become a Christian! </font>

MacArthur isn't infallible, only one person was. (One need only look at his doctrine of separation to see how! "Ashamed of the Gospel" is a good start.)

Even then, is it not dishonest to use someone else's words uncited (even when paraphrased)? That is what I have been taught throughout my schooling.

The fact that you say I have a "know-it-all" attitude merely because I challenged one of your statements, makes your post an ad hominem fallacy. Since you were unable to answer it, you resorted to name calling. The fact that your tone is completely derogatory doesn't bother me much. I've seen your posts long enough to understand why you do such things.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Originally posted by SheEagle9/11:
In what way? Separation from what? Transformation from what to what? In what ways do you preach/teach we are to be separate from the world? In what ways are we to be transformed?

SheEagle,

For my thoughts on the need for transforming ourselves, click here.

For my thoughts on transforming the world, click here.

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. It's been a busy couple of days and I took the weekend off.

Joshua

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
1. MacArthur isn't infallible, only one person was. (One need only look at his doctrine of separation to see how! "Ashamed of the Gospel" is a good start.)

2. Even then, is it not dishonest to use someone else's words uncited (even when paraphrased)?

3. The fact that you say I have a "know-it-all" attitude merely because I challenged one of your statements . . .

1. That's a great book! You must be liberal in your theology!

2. Nope!

3. No, because I see you challenging and picking apart words of many BBers who have gained the respect of many other BBers for their sound doctrine and reasoning (Helen, Pastor Larry for examples). Again, it's not that you challenged, but how you challenged! You never answered my question: "Closer to what?" Closer to Scott who has omniscient knowledge of God's Word?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by John Wells:

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
1. MacArthur isn't infallible, only one person was. (One need only look at his doctrine of separation to see how! "Ashamed of the Gospel" is a good start.)

2. Even then, is it not dishonest to use someone else's words uncited (even when paraphrased)?

3. The fact that you say I have a "know-it-all" attitude merely because I challenged one of your statements . . . [/QUOTE]

1. That's a great book! You must be liberal in your theology!

Another ad hominem. The problem with Biblical separation is a long one, and should be left for another thread, but needless to say, there is a specific contradiction between what MacArthur espouses and the example set by Christ. Most of his tome revolves around the deterministic principles of Calvinism. Since I am not a Calvinist nor a determinist, it is easy to see why I disagree.

2. Nope!

Then you go against the standard practice of academia, law, and so on. Failing to do so is plagarism.

3. No, because I see you challenging and picking apart words of many BBers who have gained the respect of many other BBers for their sound doctrine and reasoning (Helen, Pastor Larry for examples). Again, it's not that you challenged, but how you challenged! You never answered my question: "Closer to what?" Closer to Scott who has omniscient knowledge of God's Word?

Pastor Larry and I have disgreed on several occasions, basically because he is on the Calvinist side of things and I am on the Arminian side of things. I am unaware on any other time in which we have came to a disagreement of reasoning or doctrine. As for Helen, I am not sure what you refer to when you say that I have "picked apart" her words.

I merely questioned the reasoning behind your statements. You had two contradictory sentences. The latter is more in line with what we see in Scripture. The former, not so much.

 

[John Wells]

Scott said, "Then you go against the standard practice of academia, law, and so on. Failing to do so is plagarism."

You have found a nice diversion from your challenge which has completely unraveled on you. Everyone expresses ideas that they have picked up along the way from others in their own words. That is how knowledge matures and grows. If I had quoted MacArthur that would be different, but expressing what I learned from him in my own words is something we all do. So be careful about making serious accusations, Scott!

So what's your next digression? Still waiting for your answer to: "Closer to what?"