Rethinking Homosexuality

Since when does history and culture determine what is absolute truth? Absolute truth should be the standard for culture, not the other way around. Your post is fully post-modernistic in its approach. You are on a hermeneutical road that reduces the Scriptures to nice stories that stir the emotion, but have no absolute authority.

Clearly, the Bible condemns homosexuality as sin. Period. Absolutely. These people need re-generation. It is our task to give them the gospel in the hopes that God will save them from their sins. There are many examples of homosexuals who have come to Christ, repented of their sin (gone straight) and are now Christian leaders.

The problem in your post is not the issue of homosexuality, but rather allowing post-modernism to guide your hermeneutics. The issue of Homosexuality is simply a symptom of your hermeneutical problem.

Chick

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Chick Daniels ]

 

Daniel, baptists in particular have an opportunity for fellowship and diversity on this issue. Since local congregations are autonomous, it is conceivable that pro-gay churches and anti-gay churches can work cooperatively (as they do in the CBF in though CBF will no longer hire open gay and lesbian Christians). Unfortunately, and for reasons I don't understand, this issue has become the test of orthodoxy for very conservative Christians.

As Chick has pointed out, there is a hermeneutic that claims that all moral rules are absolute ones. In my experience, they have to do some cognitive gymnastics around the Old Testament, but that generally doesn't stop them. Nevertheless, historically Jews and Christians have been somewhat flexible on understanding which actions reflect sinful intent or behavior.

Joshua

 

Daniel,

You'll find we've gone down the road of interpreting the biblical passages that deal with same-sex behavior several times. I'm sure the threads are still out there if you want to find them. I don't want to rehash the arguments on a new thread, but I am interested in talking about how baptist churches and cooperative bodies should respond to the ministry opportunities available to them and how they should look at issues of cooperation.

Joshua
(Who thinks that homosexuality is not a sin, but does get tired of people saying his ministerial credentials should be revoked )

 

The thought of "Adam and Steve" scares me. Modern culture accepts homosexuallity as well as other sins to be normal in our lives. This is the same modern culture that has no integrety nor laws that restrict sin. Being gay is not OK. Scipture tells us that earthly desires are not Godly desires (stick that in your ear.)

Think about it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The only homosexuality Paul knew of was based on (1) pagan religion or (2) pedophilia.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I humbly disagree. And no, I haven't read any of your posts in other threads.

To imply that these are the ONLY examples of homosexuality in Paul's time is similar to saying that the only homosexuality we know of today is based on extreme cults or pedophilia.

The timelessness of the Bible is in question here; and the fact that a collection of writings that I believe we all agree was God-breathed dealt with most, if not all, of the same issues 4,000 years ago that we're dealing with today, emphasizes that fact.

Gentlemen, there is no such thing as a Christian adulterer, nor a Christian fornicator. But the man who resists committing adultery, and the woman who resists committing fornication--those God loves, and the devil flees from.

I believe that engaging in homosexuality is biblically wrong, and sinful. I believe we can preach the Gospel to homosexuals, and I believe they can be redeemed by God's love and His shed blood. But I also believe that those that say they can continue in homosexual activities and still call themselves Christians, are no different than those who continue in fornication and/or adultery and call themselves "Christians."

 

Homosexuality is biblically wrong, plain and simple. Scripture could not be clearer. It is one of the few sins God calls an abomination.

The charge that Baptists have "avoided" the issue doesn't stick, as many a commentator and exegete has addressed the issue, whch in reality, is a non-issue. There is no debate.

I am moving this thread to the Baptist theology board.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

I have taken more than a few beatings on this very board for my anti-sodomite position. But thank you Dr. Bob, & Don, & Chris.

I do believe homosexuals can be saved. But to go with this practice would be like the saved drug addict who still uses. It is not O.K. to turn your back on God's word. It is not O.K. to justify azpostate thinking with what the world is doing.

AFAIC, nothing to re-think about, only re-pent from.

 

Romans 1 says several things about sodomy (not paganism):


1. It dishonors the body. Ro 1:24 (KJV)

2. It is a vile affection. Ro 1:26 (KJV)

3. It is against nature. Ro 1:27 (KJV)

4. It is an error that brings God's judgment. Ro 1:27 (KJV)

5. It is unseemly. Ro 1:27 (KJV)


Homosexuality is a sin!

Sincerely,
RR

 

Leviticus 18:22 (ESV)
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Numbers 23:19a (ESV)
19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.

Any answers, Joshua? Daniel?

A better title for this thread would be "Let's change God's mind to suite ours concerning homosexuality!" I agree with Dr. Bob, arguing the ligitimacy of homosexuality belongs on the trash heap!


[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: John Wells ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Wells:
Any answers, Joshua?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regarding abominations: Leviticus 11 also makes it clear that eating shrimp is an abomination.

Regarding changing minds: Genesis 32:14 "And the LORD changed his mind about the disaster that he planeed to bring on his people." (NRSV) I'm pretty sure the verb there is /nacham/ for those who wish to challenge that translation.

Joshua

 

Joshua,
I am puzzled by the hermeneutic you are using to say that homosexuality is no longer an abomination. I understand that there are ceremonial and cultural regulations in the OT law (like eating shrimp and mixing materials in clothing) which are not binding on us today. However, the way you argue for your position on homosexuality confuses me. If I say I believe that murder is a sin, or stealing, will you say,"Yeah, and I bet you think that eating shrimp is a sin too!"? Surely you are not saying that the OT has no moral instruction for us at all?

 

Joshua- The Old Testament law says that we are not to go to bed with our sister or mother. And it says we are not to have relations with animals. Since we live in a whole new covenant- would you say it is okay to do these things?

UNP
Adam

 

Daniel, I think where we come to different points is how we take the Bible.
Look at Romans I take it to be an inspired interpretation of our faith as christians. Lets take from reading Jude I think that the Holy Spirit knew what was going to happen, He knew that men claiming to be christian teachers and preachers would come to undermine the teaching of the Epistles by taking us back to the gospel where they would have freedom to interpret loosely the teaching without difinite limations.
I believe that each book of the bible,OT and NT are the words of God. I think in a way the Bible is Christ's mind on earth.
Bob

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: Bob Alkire ]

 

Daniel, If you were trying to be honest with Scripture, then you will obey the Scriptures as quoted by Dr. Bob and others. My original statement on this thread sticks. Your politically-correct, post-modernistic, warm and fuzzy hermeneutic is an attempt to explain away what God has clearly stated. If our culture made it politically correct for all of us to run around without any clothing--and anyone who objected became labelled as an insensitive fanatic--you and Joshua would probably come along and say, "you fundamentalists need take another look at this clothing issue--the Scriptures really need to be taken into cultural and historical context. Why Paul would be astonished if he were here today to see believers taking a stand requiring clothing."

In truth, the OT condemns homosexuality, as does the NT. The evidence from Church History is also consistent. Only now in the politically correct, enlightened 20/21 century do people stand up and inform God that in all our wisdom, we have determined that God's clear statements must be made relative to accomodate the sensitivities of sinners around us. Please read D.A. Carson's Gagging of God.

Chick

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paynedaniel:
Moderates and liberals are not saying, "I like this passage, but I don't like this one." We are attempting to be honest with all of Scripture and interpret in faithfully as it applies today.

Daniel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Moderates and liberals like to interpret the bible for today, and tomorrow they will interpret it differently to fit whatever they want. Fundamentalists interpret the Bible not to fit today, but to fit all of time. You can find scripture to back up any idea that you have if you go looking for it. The bible must be read with an open mind and you must be willing to change to it, not make it change to you!

As for homosexuality, it is wrong. pure and simple. The term 'sodomy' comes from Sodom, which was destroyed due partly to rampant homosexuality. Sexual perversion has always had a serious consequence. This sin, like any other, can and is overcome by Godly, agape, love. But you can not serve God while openly and unashamedly living in sin.