Redemption From Sodomy

[Sherrie]

How can Joshua's Church be Baptist!? When the Baptist have even boycotted Disney World/land for Gay Day, and such actions. How can the Baptist allow this?

I think sometimes these things should be investigated by a committee.

Joshua's Baptist Church is not like any Baptist Church I have ever attended.

Sherrie

 

[Daniel David]

Sherrie, it is "baptist" in the sense that it holds to certain "baptist" distinctives.

One of those would be local church autonomy.

One of those would be soul liberty.

One of those would be unregenerate membership. Oh wait, that is a distinctive of Josh's church.

Actually, that last one among baptists is regenerate membership (thus eliminating the bizarre practice of infant sprinkling, pouring, whatever, etc).

Do they abuse those distinctives? Yes.

Do they still hold to those distictives? Yes.

This is a perfect instance of a baptist group and yet unregenerate. Another would be the CBF.

Like the term of Saddam's dictatorship, I am out.

 

[kman]

Originally posted by Sherrie:
How can Joshua's Church be Baptist

The more accurate question is "how can Joshua's Church" be a true Christian Church?

Encouraging and condoning sin that will send people to hell is not Christian. People who are claiming to be Christians and ignore God's clear teaching on the issue are soul assassins, dupes of Satan.

-kman

 

[Aaron]

I wonder what Post-it's thoughts on bestiality would be.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Originally posted by Sherrie:
How can Joshua's Church be Baptist!? When the Baptist have even boycotted Disney World/land for Gay Day, and such actions. How can the Baptist allow this?

Sherrie, you are confusing "baptist" with Southern Baptist. Since the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention, there is considerably less diversity among its member churches.

Our church is a member of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship & the Alliance of Baptists, and the seminary from which I graduated is affiliated with both as well.

Are KJV-only churches still baptist? Are non-KJV-only ones? Are inerrantist churches? Are non-inerrantist churches? Yes to all of the above. Diversity is one of the benefits and one of the dangers of baptist polity.

Joshua

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Aaron:
I wonder what Post-it's thoughts on bestiality would be.

I suppose it would be wrong in an idolatrous situation. Perhaps if they were in a committed relationship it would be okay.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by post-it:
I don't think you are quoting scripture correctly here, but let's assume you are. I would agree that this type (emphasis mine, rlv) of homosexual behavior is a sin that needs to be stopped...Only Romans 1:27 gives a clear meaning of homosexual action that should be counted as sin, and that is men or women who where once heterosexual and they crossed over to acting homosexual.

post-it, you complain of Mark redefining the word "sodomy," but if I understand your posts correctly, you have redefined "homosexual" to be sin only in the context of idolatrous worship and non-committed relationships. You have contended that the N.T. references condemning the act relate to adultery/prostitution/idolatry. The reference that Mark used in the beginning post is from I Corinthians 6:9-10: "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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (bold emphasis mine, rlv). In that reference we see a number of persons identified as unrighteous, including homosexuals (and separate from idolaters and adulterers).

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
Sherrie, you are confusing "baptist" with Southern Baptist.

Joshua, she probably is not, since she is not a Southern Baptist, but rather a General Baptist.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

RLV - I was unaware that any of the General Baptist bodies were also boycotting Disney. I'm only familiar with the SBC boycott, so that's the one to which I assumed she was referring.

As to "redefining" what "homosexual" means, that is at the heart of the discussion. Many NT scholars (like Robin Scroggs) contend that the context in which Paul was writing only addressed temple prostitution and a very common, Greek form of institutionalized pedophilia.

I contend (and I believe Poat-It does as well) that the biblical authors never addressed the issue of monogamous, adult homosexuality because it wasn't on their radar. Likewise educated, independent women and a world without slavery.

Joshua

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
RLV - I was unaware that any of the General Baptist bodies were also boycotting Disney. I'm only familiar with the SBC boycott, so that's the one to which I assumed she was referring.

I'm not all that familiar with boycotting, since I'm not prone to participate in much of anything like that. But, as I remember it, the boycott was probably started by the Southern Baptists; yet other Baptists churches and individuals also boycotted Disney.

As to "redefining" what "homosexual" means, that is at the heart of the discussion. Many NT scholars (like Robin Scroggs) contend that the context in which Paul was writing only addressed temple prostitution and a very common, Greek form of institutionalized pedophilia.

So is Scroggs (and other scholars) building temple prostitution into every mention of homosexuality, regardless of context (e.g. I Cor. 6:9)? Are they implying that the Greek could not understand the word homosexuality outside of that context? I'd say the redefining would seem to be by those who differ from years of consistent Jewish & Christian understanding of homosexuality as a sin, and burden of proof lies therefore lies with them.

This seems to be a simple case of eisogesis. One determines that such a thing as homosexual "marriage" exists and is OK, and then determines that the New Testament writers don't condemn it because they didn't know it existed. Since they didn't know it existed, they didn't condemn it, and therefore it must be right.

[ September 25, 2002, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

[Phillip]

Let me explain this "Baptist" thing from a Southern Baptist's point of view. Even in Southern Baptist churches the church is autonomous and does not take orders from any central group. For example "The Southern Baptist Convention". This is Biblical, but it can also be a problem when a church varies from the Word of God. We have "problematic" baptist churches or at least they claim to be "baptist" and they vote in the Convention. The real issue is why don't they form their own denomination? Two reasons that I see: First, Satan is going to infiltrate any good church it can in an attempt to destroy their testimony of Christ. (This problem resulted in the conservative resurgence in the SBC because several good ministers found out that our universities were teaching non-biblical doctrine such as evolution--these colleges ARE run by the convention.) The second reason, it is much easier to take a group of people that already exist, as Rev. Joshua has and turn them into his incorrect doctrine.
Paul had this problem with the church at Corinth and understood that they were "babes in Christ" because they were allowing the old habits of their lifestyles to enter the church. He corrected them sharply and even accused many of not being Christian.
A lot of these doctrinally unsound pastors will take a group and start bringing in new Christians with their liberal ways (You can live whatever lifestyle you want and go to our church--we'll even serve you cokes and donuts while you sit in our big comfortable auditorium watching the Sunday morning "SHOW" -- I'm not saying these things are wrong, but many of these liberal churches put on a show for the people to get their members rather than preach the Word. Soon, they have enough of these young-misguided people to out-vote and run off any
doctrinally sound Christians. It is happening all the time.

Now, let me quickly hit his other subject. ...being born a homosexual. This is true, but only to the extent that ALL men are born "sinners" and therefore before we become Christians we are "capable" of any sin. But, as far as saying a person is born "physiologically" a homosexual, then are "pedaphiles" born that way, if so then a consenting relationship between a man and a fourteen year old boy is okay, in Rev. Joshua's angle of looking at things--as long as both parties are in agreement. This issue is now being tested in some places. Homosexuality, just happens to be one of the "big" sin issues that was used in the bible to point out when an abomination is occuring in a group of people.
Rev. Joshua never seems to answer my questions on specific verses, but I bet he would just throw out the Old Testament entirely if he could. The entire problem here is NOT necessarily the sin itself, but a Baptist leader denying the accuracy and literalness of God's Holy Word, the Bible. Let Rev. Joshua answer that one...does he believe in the accuracy and literalness of the Bible without exception? Including Genesis 1 through 11?

[ September 25, 2002, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Phillip,

You've made several assumptions, and I will try to address as many of them as possible. Even the most casual glance at my sermons will show you hoe seriously I take the Old Testament and how frequently I preach from it.

I do not believe Genesis 1-11 are literally true, but I do believe they are theologically true and authoritative.

As for Virginia-Highland Baptist Church, they were already a welcoming and affirming congregation when I got there. Over the life of the church, the neighborhood (Midtown Atlanta) had gone through several demographic changes. The most recent was a shift toward young, gay professionals moving in and restoring some of the beautiful, old homes in the neighborhood. Over time, the area has become something of a gay Mecca, and the members of Virginia-Highland were frustrated by the fact that their neighbors did not feel any connection with or need for the church.

In a move led by the older members of the congregation -many of whom had been members all of their lives - the congregation decided to seriously study the issue of homosexuality and why they believed what they believed. Ultimately, they came to the conclusion that it was not intrinsically sinful, and worked hard to make sure that their neighbors knew that they were welcome.

Joshua

 

[Sherrie]

This cracks me up! You are more worried about which Baptist is boycotting what, rather than the real issue.

Sherrie

 

[Phillip]

So, you finally admit Genesis 1 through 11 is not literal. How do you handle Leviticus when it discusses homosexuality as an abomination? (I didn't see any sections that discuss it is okay for a man to sleep with another man as he would a woman "if he is married" to him.)

Okay, so your church happened the other way around. I would have thought that the leadership of the church would have been doctrinally sound enough to prevent such a perversion of belief. You are right, if the people refuse to quit living in sin, you church should not accept them. And, I mean habital lifestyle not "trying to live like Jesus" and sinning now and then. Thank goodness our pastor is strong enough to tell a couple who is living together (man and woman) that the church cannot accept them as members until they either get married or one moves out. It is as simple as that.

I know about gay Meccas I spend a lot of time in Tulsa and if you know anything about gays, you know that Tulsa is probably second compared to San Francisco in gay population. To the best of my knowledge, I don't know any Baptist churches there that would accept a preacher preaching the lifestyle. Even our liberal Episcopal church eliminated a pastor who "came out of the closet".

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Anthony J Lanius:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Joshua

I would have to agree with you on this Joshua. I have a problem with #3 of Marks statement. I've seen a 'former homosexual' allowed into full membership of the church, and moved into a leadership position without a proper time of 'proving' himself</font>[/QUOTE]Anthony,

I have seen men who weren't known as a "former" anything do great damage to a church by being ordained to the ministry. Certainly, any man who is going to be ordained ought first to prove himself, and even then we have no absolute assurance that he won't defile his calling.

That has nothing to do with the issue of church membership. The Bible specifically says that repentant sodomites were received as members of the church and it didn't say they had to be "aired out" first.

Mark Osgatharp

P.S. Don't expect to get any sympathy from Joshua on this issue - he doesn't even think sodomy is a sin and his church ordained an impenitent sodomite as deacon.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Mark, point taken. So just for regular church membership they should be received, but for leadership positions they should be "proved".
I expect no sympathy from Joshua, regardless of what his beliefs or interpretations of the scriptures are.

AJL

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Originally posted by Sherrie:
This cracks me up! You are more worried about which Baptist is boycotting what, rather than the real issue.

Sherrie

Sherrie - you raised the issue, not me. You said that you couldn't believe there could be a pro-gay baptist church when the "baptists" were boycotting Disney. I clarified that a baptist group was boycotting Disney, but that not all naional baptist organizations are anti-gay.

I'm glad you're amused, but you're the one who brought up the boycott.

Joshua

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Originally posted by Phillip:
So, you finally admit Genesis 1 through 11 is not literal. How do you handle Leviticus when it discusses homosexuality as an abomination?

"Finally?" I've been saying that Genesis 1-11 were allegory for as long as I've been here. I discussed it at length in at least two threads I can think of where I discussed my approach to exegesis. Where have you been?

As for Leviticus, I violate the Levitical code every time I put on a wool/poly blazer. I don't think it's particularly relevant to this discussion.

Joshua

 

[M Wickens]

Just to thank preachtheword, Mark Osgatharp, Sherrie and Aaron. I don't always agree with you but have appreciated your posts in this forum.

Cheers

Godbless

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
As for Leviticus, I violate the Levitical code every time I put on a wool/poly blazer. I don't think it's particularly relevant to this discussion.

Joshua[/QB]

OK since you agree that the code can be broken in wardrode why not in man with man sex? If you point to our not being under this code can we not look to Jesus example such as when he expanded thou shalt not commit adultry to also mean lusting in our heart. Haveing said this how can you believe that Jesus would approve of a man/ man marriage and not see it as sin.
Murph

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Since beastiality is not sinful if it is monogamous should a person who enjoys this lifestyle marry their donkey ( or whatever they like)Now I only see two problems #1 who can we get to perform the ceremony and #2 how can they get their donkey to be monogamous. Is it really fair to pen a donkey up and never let him associate with his kind. I just don't know if he will be faithful.
Murph