Notes
Notes - notes.io |
Except among the Jews, homosexuality (like fornucation, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; envy, murder, deceit, malignity, etc) was not frowned at by many pagan cultures of the ancient world. (28) And even as they did...
1 month ago
Like
Comment
Unfollow
Flag
More
Almerick Cooke, Bill Watson and 1 other like this
274 comments • Jump to most recent comments
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • HOMOSEXUALITY & the likes:
Except among the Jews, homosexuality (like fornucation, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; envy, murder, deceit, malignity, etc) was not frowned at by many pagan cultures of the ancient world.
Romans 1:28-32
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not proper;
(29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
(30) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
(31) Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
(32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Todays world is only reviving its depraved, pagan, heathenish cultures. It was the Church that pointed out the evil, vileness and folly of homosexuality and other sinful cultural practices to the pagan societies of the nations through the light of the Gospel. This eventually led to such evils becoming abhored, repented from or even criminalised.
The Scriptures talk unambiguously about the divine origin and certainty of Scriptural revelation as against the reprobate and futile (even if intellectual) philosophies (or foolosophies?) of the heathens that produced, propagated and pursued idolatrous religions, homosexual and other vile sexual and inordinate passions, disregard for God and His judgment, and zealous godlessness. A futile mindedness that wants to change even God but would refuse to change any of its inclinations and orientations.
Romans 1:21-28
(21) Because, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
(22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
(23) And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
(24) Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
(25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
(27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting.
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not proper;
Because the pagans want unbiblical things to be acceptable, so they have to propagate a foundational ideology of no biblical authority and no absolutes. That is deluded denial of reality and can never be true even if the whole world held to it, as they once did before Christ and His Apostle began to put things right. This current move will (take it or leave it) certainly crumble entirely under God’s wrath when the cup is full.
Romans 1:18
(18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Rosalie
Rosalie Squires • I prefer not to say anything about homosexuality because so many Christians say so much on the subject that people get the impression that that is all we are interested in.
I've copied the following from the Bible verses that you quoted, Ifechukwu:
covetousness, maliciousness; envy, deceit, malignity, whisperers,
backbiters, despiteful, proud, boasters, disobedient to parents, implacable, unmerciful:
It seems to me that these are all evils of our current world and ones where we would do well to shine the light of Christ in the hope that they can be replaced by fruits of the spirit.
1 month ago
• Like
7
Follow Almerick
Almerick Cooke • We don't place enough attention on the others which you have pointed out Rosalie, but that does not excuse us from continuing to speak out about homosexuality. It is when we refrain that that these things take root and become accepted as norms and as rights.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Francis
Francis Pole • It is about time that we Christians thought about the REAL issues. Homosexuality really isn't one - and the Churches are becoming a laughing-stock because of their obsession about sex.
I think that those who 'push' Old Testament laws need to stop being so selective. What's more they need to realise the progress that has been made in medicine, psychology etc.. Many books have been written about ;nature and nurture' viz-a-viz homsexuality. As to the New Testament: the primary focus is the law of LOVE. References to homsexuality are about temnple prostitution. Nothing is said about long-term, stable, faithful and monogomous relationships between two men or two women.
My own experience as a counsellor and caseworker convinces me of the value of these.
1 month ago
• Like
4
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Francis, please don't cast the argument on homosexuality as some fascination with Old Testament Law. The Apostle Paul and the New Testament are clear on the subject. The only people who interpret these passages outside of their historic and plain intent are those who support homosexuality. Furthermore the Christians in the anti-nicene Roman world condemned both homosexuality and abortion as being contrary to the Christian moral code. It was not merely temple prostitution (but even that says something about its spiritual origin) but also homosexual activity.
"The Discipline and Advantage of Chastity"
"And this also, very frequently burning without reference to sex, and not restraining itself within the permitted limits, thinks it little satisfaction to it self, unless even in the bodies of men it seeks, nota new pleasure, but goes in quest of extraordinary and revolting extravagances, contrary to nature itself, of men with men.
But chastity maintains the first rank in virgins, the second in those who are continent, the third in the case of wedlock."
(from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Cyprian, Volume 5)
1 month ago
• Like
1
Ezekiel Wanje • God rained fire and brimstone on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Why? Because of rampant homosexuality. God hates such a practice. God is the same yesterday, tomorrow and forever. There is no Old testament God and New Testament God. The creation story sums it so well. God created a helper for Adam,the helper was not another man! God even created different body parts for precise purposes. The woman was to receive the man's seed and procreate ... fill the world, but we have become complicated people. We have married fellow men and made test-tube babies, we feed them on bottled milk etc telling God that the woman is not necessary and VV. The people's body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. Judge for yourselves if homosexuals and lesbians are also temples....
1 month ago
3
Follow Chris
Chris Dalliston • Sorry but Jesus distinctly re-evaluates the Old Testament law: You have heard it said an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth but I say to you....maybe not a different God but certainly one we are learning more about... By the way in Jesus' teaching what proportion touches on homosexuality and what proportion on judging ones brother or sister?
1 month ago
• Like
4
Ezekiel Wanje • Matthew 5:17-18
New International Version (NIV)
The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
did i see someone saying Jesus came to change the law?
1 month ago
2
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Chris,proportions have little to do with it. Only once in the gospels does Jesus condemn stealing. Should we understand by this that stealing is less a sin than murder or adultery, which is mentioned by Jesus many more times? Judging ones brother is not the same as discerning between evil, as it say's in Heb 5:14 "But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."NKJV To discern is to make a judgement, not on the eternal destiny of a person but on the face of their behavior. A Christian has no business judging the standing before God of a gay man, a liar, a drunk, a thief, an adulterer, or a hypocrite. But the behavior of each of these is evident to all who observe it and the behaviors are called sins in the bible. We are to avoid sins, not normalize to them. I honor the Gay Christian who has the courage to remain celibate and abstain from all impurity and sexual activity. Such a person is courageous. A person who tries to pervert and twist the scriptures and make the world bow to his illicit behavior is a fool.
1 month ago
• Unlike
6
Follow Francis
Francis Pole • Thank you for your comments. I am afraid we shall have to agree to disagree.
I am not gay, but have worked with many people as a Senior Probation Officer, straight, gay, bisexual, transsexual and as a priest.
I am more and more convinced of a God who includes everyone, and that includes all of the above and more. I think it is for all of us to value and respect everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation and to expect those who are not married to refrain from sexual activity is simply not on provided it is within a monogamous, stable and loving relationship. .
1 month ago
• Like
4
Ezekiel Wanje • With all due respect, maybe we should also respect the thieves, fornicators, adulterers, and all things done today as permissible to God. I beg to disagree!
1 month ago
1
Follow Andrew P
Andrew P Hicks • Love thy neighbour. Since none of us are perfect and all have sinned... Let us recognise those whom God has called whatever their orientation. Does not Peter's revelation about clean and unclean apply here? Judge not that you be not judged. If only our church spent less time on these quarrels and more on our mission to preach the Gospel of salvation. We do more harm to our church and our mission by our hypocrisy and division, our hate, our name calling and our mutual recrimination than the likes of Richard Dawkins ever will. Shame on us.
1 month ago
• Like
5
Follow Chris
Chris Dalliston • A question to Ezekiel - although Jesus said he hadn't come to change the law he did quite clearly at least radically re-interpret it didn't he? I notice you didn't follow up the point I made in my post. Also there are huge number of Old testament "commands" we ignore or see as invalidated by Christ's coming - all the stuff to do with sacrifice and circumcision for example. The letter to the Hebrews is another example of a massive re-working of traditional Old Testament teachings. And Matthew - you missed the point of my comment on proportionality - it was ironic since I think Jesus himself makes NO comment on homosexuality - he does say however that calling thy brother a fool will bring the speaker in danger of the "hell fire" which if that is the case Ifechukwu should take care to guard against using the word.
All of this shows how easy it is to score points in such arguments (message to myself here too) and that is unedifying at best. I do think we need to ask though why this issue above all other should generate such heat and visceral reactions. Predatory sexual activity whether heterosexual or homosexual is obviously dangerous and damaging to vulnerable people but can loving and faithful relationships between people be so outrageous and offensive to God and if so why?
1 month ago
• Like
2
Ezekiel Wanje • Who said that sacrifices ended?
Romans 12:1–2
I appeal to you therefore, brothers,by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world,but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
Everyday we deny ourselves something because of our Love for God we are doing a sacrifice. Jesus himself was sacrificed on the tree. This occurred in the new testament times. He fulfilled the law. When we get born again, we live in him and he in us, since he was a sacrificed lamb, through him, we pay our sacrifice. No law was changed. It was fulfilled.
1 month ago
1
Follow Andrew P
Andrew P Hicks • I pray that the Chief Apostle may learn to place love of his neighbour above judgement of that neighbour. Surely Christ died that we might be saved. THAT is the gospel message.p. it is one of love. Preach that and not condemnation.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Bob
Bob O'Brien • @ Derek, Your language is inappropriate and out of line. In Genesis God declared "Therefore, a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife." That is God's standard. God does not lie and neither does he change His mind. He also does not create peoples sexual orientation it is learned not innate. John is closer to the real truth than you want to admit. Why does that make you so angry?
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • I think that at the heart of the issue is "Which is the authoritative community" or "which reading of the texts is authoritative". The problem with reinterpreting the faith and order of The Church to support homosexual relationships is that in order to do that you have to make the current socially accepted positions more authoritative than the mind of the catholic church. Admitting that complex chemical reactions fail a small percentage of the time and admitting the possibility that other chemical compounds like BPA can have an effect on human development I do not think one can sustain an intelligible argument that homosexuality is entirely a choice among a small percentage of the population. That being said there are other indicators that show that it is "nurture" that can predispose a person towards homosexual attraction. But neither of these facts or theories are sufficient cause to rewrite the moral law. Should a gay person find themselves inextricably oriented towards the opposite sex the proper Christian response is to embrace the cross and obey the scriptures, not toss out the scriptures and church teaching so that they can experience homoerotic affection. It is still a sin. In the same way one person may be "Wired" to be more adulterous than another. Should this person say "I was born with to much testosterone and cannot keep myself to one woman no matter how hard I try"? Or should such a person remain chaste?
1 month ago
• Unlike
5
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Second point: God clearly made Adam and Eve (and every other animal for that matter) with the intention of procreation. God's creation is not sterile. Homosexual relationships cannot produce children. Now for many modern people this is not too much of an issue. But a society or group that has already admitted abortion as a means of birth control has already separated procreation from the union of a man and a woman, from there it is easy to make any union about only that which is satisfying to the parties involved - love becomes less than love because it is now at its root selfish. Selfishness is always sterile.
The other problem is both ontological and semiotic/phenomenological. Homosexual people will, where ever they go, see paired male and female couples. And not only among humans, but among animals as well. I do not think this ontological fact is overcome-able. And I think that this reality has got to bear down upon the mind and soul of a gay person in a very real, yet subconscious way. This will create inner turmoil, anger, fear, et al. While some may be able to engineer some level of social acceptance it will never be fully acceptable. This would be like trying to make the sun out to be the moon. From natural law standpoint the position is not sustainable. Given that there are so many rational proofs against it and that one has got to contravene the catholic faith and order of the church as well as the clear understanding of scripture to support it I think the burden of failure is on the proponents of it.
1 month ago
• Unlike
3
Follow Chief Apostle John
Chief Apostle John Mix • Pastor Hicks:
Were do you see anywheres in my response do you see anything about JUDGEING. I talked about the Strong holds and they are victims that is Judgement Oh my you do not want to except the truth!! That it is a Unclean spirit on those that desire men for men and women for women. That is not judgeing Pastor that is a fact. I said in my response we LOVE them but we do not love the sin they commit. If you are saying to love sin. I must remind you pastor you are a warror of God!!! Lay hands on the sick and the affirmed and they shall recover. It is our job to break those Yokes of bondage off of them and set them free. Please tell me you are not saying you except there sin and let them live there lives in sin?? You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink. They haft to want to give up that lifestyle. I can say this though Pastor. When Abba commands me to go and cast out those demons from that victim. You better believe I will. I will not stand before my Lord and Savor Jesus Christ and have blood on my hands!!!! When I am given an assignmemt the blood is placed on my hands. The blood is not removed untill I have done what Abba has commanded me to do. I pray for you Pastor that you have no blood on your hands!!!!
Shabot Shalom!!
God Bless You!!
Chief Apostolic Apostle Archbishop Dr. John Mix
601-262-5292
www.peciccc.org
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Leslie
Leslie Ferguson • While I may not agree with the specific comments of some of the participants I am sickened that there are such blatant bigoted statements. I take offense as a Christian and an Anglican that some feel it appropriate to demonize and ridicule people in their responses.
1 month ago
• Like
3
Follow William
William Riker • I find the continuing "discussion" tiring. None seem to have started from Jesus' commandment to "Love one another, as I have loved you". Are we called to reach out and include those whose behavior does not meet the biblical standards we say we accept, or are we called by Christ to separate those with whom we disagree or find fault? In the Baptismal Covenant of the BCP (ECUSA) We are called to: " Seek and serve Christ in all others, loving our neighbors as ourselves...". I wrestle with this. I have an easy list which
includes some famous and some known only to me and a hard list including the evil, the criminal and the judgmental. The hard list is my "To Do List" with the individuals in whom I do not yet see Christ. When I finish that list I may be ready to move on to dealing with the issues by which you are absorbed, or I may be with Christ in another place and time and not find it important.
1 month ago
• Like
5
Follow Andrew P
Andrew P Hicks • John Mix
Are you an Anglican as this group is called Anglican Communion? Who appointed you Archbishop, and where? Who, apart perhaps from yourself decided you were God's chief apostle - let the greatest among you be the least. As for judgement, your thread clearly condemns gays and lesbians to the pit of hell. Since Jesus never did, are you putting yourself in authority over Him? As for choice, some of my gay and lesbian friends have told me they would give anything to be straight but even as children have known they were different. Through God's gracious love they have found peace with their orientation and contribute in loving witness to God's work. Would that some of those whose unloving and evil comments are posted here considered whether they are contributing as much to the growth of His kingdom
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • None want to tackle my previous two comments above? No takers capable of sustaining a reasoned discussion?
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Andrew P
Andrew P Hicks • Reasoned? Rational proofs? Natural law? Homosexual behaviour occurs widely elsewhere in the animal kingdom, such as chimpanzees, even dogs. I suspect many on this thread are not amenable to a change of views through reasoned argument, but rely on SELECTIVE biblical texts to support their views. That is NOT reasoned argument.
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Derek
Derek Turner • Amen
Anglican Communion <[email protected]> wrote:
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Bob
Bob O'Brien • It is possible to have a reasoned discussion if we remove some labels. I am a straight single male. I have been single my entire life. I have not been celibate for my entire life for there was a time when I was younger I explored the area of my sexuality. To be blunt I was a sinner and I recognize that I sinned by acting on my lust. I have since repented and am forgiven of my sin.
Anyone who has a sexual relationship that is outside of the bond of marriage between one male and one female is a sinner whatever his orientation. The sin is not having an orientation it is acting on ones orientation. However, when we recognize we have sinned and repent God is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us, but we still live with some consequences perhaps an illness or an inability to form a committed relationship.
There are some in this world who believe that a couple that live together outside of the marriage bond between a male and female, as long as they are in a committed relationship, are not sinners. I find no place in the scriptures or writing of our church fathers that suggests that this idea is acceptable to God. In fact it is the practice is soundly condemned as sin, and repentance is required to have a right relationship with God. I think our attempts to redefine what God requires is at best a rationalization and at worst outright heresy.
1 month ago
• Like
3
Follow Derek
Derek Turner • Preach it!
Anglican Communion <[email protected]> wrote:
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Leslie
Leslie Ferguson • One part of the conversation that is problematic is the desire to focus on one narrow aspect of humanity and not the other very direct prohibitions of the bible. I won't throw the argument about wearing mixed fabrics or hybrid crops - nonsensical and I would imagine that Jews are not that strict anymore (but I'm only guessing and ask if any Jews read this passage to chime in). But I point to the thing that much of the ongoing bickering shows is the broken relationship between and among all of God's creation. Somehow, we have decided that anything and anyone that is not like us (whomever that might be) is lesser in God's eyes - or so it appears. Yet, I read the bible and see more often than not that we are not supposed to count ourselves better than another as we are all sinners.
Please help me understand why the focus is on homosexuality and not on something that is really important - the systemic abuse of our world; whether that be humankind, natural resources, or any other thing that is truly important for our continued existence. Yes, our sexual orientation may have a large part to play in our eternal life but I would hate to have to make an accounting to God - the creator of all things in heaven and earth - about how I have treated creation. I have been responsible, either by action or by omission, for the destruction of many irreplaceable aspects of creation.
There are so many things in our common life that need press and attention that it seems silly to focus on something that may be of little consequence in the final accounting. I feel that God is going to stand and ask me: where have you taken care of the least of these? And if I answer - I've solved the debate about whether homosexuality is an unforgivable sin God will ask what I have been doing to live out the great commission.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Almerick
Almerick Cooke • Poor excuses for continuation of, and acceptance of , sin!!
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Leslie
Leslie Ferguson • Prithee Almerick - to what are you speaking?
I'm still of one mind that God must be upset with us debating this topic as opposed to figuring out how to bring true justice to a world that needs it.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Ezekiel Wanje • Can someone tell me why the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed? If homosexuality is just a normal thing that is tolerated by God, Why did God take such a drastic action, to reduce the whole city to ashes and rubble?
1 month ago
1
Ezekiel Wanje • Can someone please interpret these verses for me?
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
English Standard Version (ESV)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:
18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
1 month ago
1
Follow Francis
Francis Pole • Dear Ezekiel. It is obvious that you, like many other evangelicals, interpret the Bible literally. To do so is fine, and I respect that, but it can lead to all kinds of selectivity: in other words, take out the bits you agree with, and leave others behind.
As regards the whole homosexuality issue, everything that is written needs to be seen in context, and passages not hurled around like some kind of football. Many passages even evangelicals will disregard (like haircurs, not eating pork, 'an eye for an eye' etc, and putting people to death for all kinds of reasons.)
Frankly, I see the Bible as God's guide to people in every age, and to be interpreted in the context in which it was written, and its application today.
As to the Gay Issue, I think the problem is that people either think of the relationship between two men/two women just in terms of bed and genital sex, which is to completely ignore the possible value of the relationship between the two people. I do not for one moment condone promiscuity whether between two people, whether heterosexual or homosexual. But what I do say is that the monogomous loving relationship between a man and a woman, or between two men or two women, is a matter for God and not for you and me.
In a word,as I get ever closer to Judgement Day - I am 70 now - I would rather be judged by the Good Lord for being gentle and, I guess liberal and inclusive, than to be judged by Him for being harsh and condemnatory.
My best wishes to, and prayers for all who have contibuted to this debate so far - whether or not I necessarily agree with you!
FP
1 month ago
• Like
2
Ezekiel Wanje • @francis, so you mean we interpret the verse as,1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters,
nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[b] 10 nor thieves, nor
the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the
kingdom of God.
So the context is that somehow adulterers idolators, sexually immoral
people will inherit God's kingdom? Is that the correct interpretation
according to you?
1 month ago
Follow Francis
Francis Pole • All I am saying it that the judging is best left to God - and not to you or me!
1 month ago
• Like
2
Ezekiel Wanje • I wasn't judging but just wanted to understand what the scripture meant, but from what I understand from your statement, it means that the thieves, idolaters, homosexuals, revilers, drunkards, swindlers can continue doing what they want freely in church and we should not tell them anything but leave them to God...
1 month ago
Follow Francis
Francis Pole • NOT SO. You misread what I have been trying to say. If yoyu re-read my earlier post you will realise that the application for today is equally valid for the list you offer. Hence the offence to God. But what I am arguing is that the refernce to homosexuality has to be seen in the context in which it was written, but that - in the light of psychology and medicine - the application of the words is rather more complex. (See my earlier postings.)
I also do not believe that Christian preachers should refrain from teaching what is in the Bible; I have never intended or said that! But ultimately it is the Good Lord who will judge us and them.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Bill
Bill Watson • In the Western world, at least 10% of the population is homosexual. How would 10% of the heterosexual population like to be told that they must remain chaste? I think that sexual orientation is likely a given, although I have often felt that nurture has a lot to do with it. In either case, it is certainly not the fault of the homosexual. It is, however, a very complex issue. It is interesting to note that while our Lord occasionally spoke of adultery and to a lesser amount of time to fornication, he railed against pride, self-righteousness and hypocrisy very frequently.
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Andrew P
Andrew P Hicks • I respectt St Paul but he is not Jesus. I will rather take Jesus' advice to cast the beam out of my own eye before taking the mote out of someone else's. Let he that is without sin cast the first stone...and they all slunk away! Better to preach that Jesus bore the ppunishment for all our sins
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Francis
Francis Pole • Yes - I agree. From my work as case-worker in the Probation Service, and Counsellor I would agree with your statistic.The Kinsey Report, and more recently the Hite reports bear that out. Although nurture MAY have something to do with it, I believe nature predominates. What's more, no-one in their right mind would want to be 'gay' or in a minority. Interesting, also, that the agency in London which attempted to 'change' people from 'gay' to 'straight' packed up, realising that although there might be an initial change, people went back to being homsexual, i.e. their nature.
Yes, it is a complex issue - which I have tried to highlight in the course of this debate.
One more thing, I believe it is entirely immoral for a 'gay' man to have sex with a woman. (Sadly some church leaders have told gays that the way to sort themselves out is to get married.) Working for a counselling agency and as a former Consultant to the Samaritans I can vouch for the fact that this simply does not work - and brings unahppiness to the persons involved.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Ezekiel Wanje • The message of 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, 17-18 in my opinion means that the
message of the appostles should not be disregarded so that we only take and
accept the words spoken by Jesus only. Perhaps, saying that we should
disregard St. Paul's message in favour of Jesus's message is what the
passage was warning about.
1Cor 1:10-13,17-18
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that
there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind
and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have
informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One
of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I
follow Cephas[b]”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the
name of Paul?
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not
with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its
power.
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,
but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1 month ago
1
Follow Almerick
Almerick Cooke • Bill Watson are you suggesting by your question "How would 10% of the
heterosexual population like to be told that they must remain chaste?" that
it's alright for homosexuals to sin by having sexual intercourse? Or do you
not regard it as sin? What are you suggesting??
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Why do homosexualists claim being inclusive but would not include those who see homosexuality as sin?
Why do homosexualists call non homosexualists bigots when they are also worse bigots themselves and even hypocrites in addition?
Why do homosexualists hate verses of the Scripture yet uphold every other heathenish quotation that negates the Scripture and are happy with every mordern pagan reinterpretation?
Why do homosexualists claim that they are motivated by love of everyone but hate those who love in truth speak the truth in love?
Why do homosexualists insist that the sin of homosexuality must be encouraged rather than transformed, while they point at other sins that should be transformed rather than encouraged?
What do homosexualists have to say about sins mentioned together with practice of homosexual passion in Romans Chapter 1: “covetousness, maliciousness; envy, deceit, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, despiteful, proud, boasters, disobedient to parents, implacable, unmerciful”?
Should the Church love sinners to encourage them to sin more and more or should the Church love sinners to encourage them to sin no more?
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • The absurd argument of homosexualists is that homosexuals are born so and created so and therefore should be included and be supported to be homosexuals more and more in love.
Then terrorist, thieves, fornicators, freaks, drunkards, drug addicts, murderers, the wicked, malicious and deceitful are born so and created so by God; these should therefore be included to continue with their sins more are more rather than transform.
O lest I forget, provided they practice their evil with only one partner and one victim at a time!
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Lots of comments, lets see if I can catch up.
1. Andrew, since this forum is unable to sustain a full biblical survey of the topic any use of scripture here or in a typical conversation would be selective. And those, like yourself, who are advocating homosexuality are equally selective. Arguments about animal behavior is no proof. "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity" geneticist Simon Levay.I would submit that the science is far from conclusive, does not understand the causes, and is ideologically driven. Two male whales that roam the seas together does not make a homosexual couple.
1. Bill, on Homosexual population- according to ABC news only about 4% of the population is Gay, not 10%. Kinsey's statistics are horribly flawed and this is generally well known. Other studies place it below 2% (http://www.equip.org/articles/what-percentage-of-people-are-homosexuals-/)
3. Leslie, the focus is on homosexuality because the question creates a crisis of truth. As I mentioned in my comments earlier, the real question is which is an authoritative read of the scriptures and which community can speak authoritatively. No one has tried to answer this yet. Many homosexual advocates pit love against "truth". But both of these go hand in hand. Truth speaks with love and love sustains truth.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Bill
Bill Watson • Yes, and others, other than Kinsey, say it is about 12%...In smaller, remote places, it might well be less than 1%, but inToronto, (5 000 000) that is certain ly not the case. One week from now there will be approximately 1 000 000 visitors in Toronto for a variety of Pride events.
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Leslie
Leslie Ferguson • Matthew - thank you for your civil discussion. Authority is an issue to be understood and I agree that scripture is inspired by God but where does the human component come in when viewing scripture. Without belaboring the point humans have had their hands in the perfect word of God since the beginning of time. While I am not saying the human sin makes the holy word of God corrupt - I am fully cognizant of the fact that people throughout eternity have impacted the way that scripture is interpreted - for good or for ill. History is full of examples where people have twisted the meaning of Scripture for their own purposes (slavery, genocide in Germany, genocide in the Crusades by both Christian and Muslim, etc.).
I continue to try to wrap my mind and my heart around the commandments given by God - beginning in Eden and capitulated in the 10 Commandments (from whence the Levitical laws came from). The mandate from God began with: Do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and you shall prosper. Then when God was giving commandments to Abraham it was reasonably simple: walk before me and be blameless. Then with Moses, after the nation of Israel became enslaved to the Egyptians the 10 Commandments were born.
Those statements of God's commandments are simple (direct) and cutting (I am very aware of how I violate all those commandments when I put myself and my agenda ahead of God as opposed to living a life of devotion to God and one pointing to relationship with God where God alone is the judge and not me {thankfully}).
I am thankful that God still wants to be in relationship with all humanity; that God made this point clear in the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. I am thankful that I am not the judge of humanity - that is too weighty for me.
Les
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Andrew P
Andrew P Hicks • Thank you, Leslie. May I say as an evangelical (a bringer of good news) I am neither pro nor anti homosexuals. What I do believe is that God wants them to hear the good news and that my job is to tell that good news, not to close their ears by MY condemnation. It is God who works in their hearts not my beliefs, and if they listen to Him they will explore the way of truth. The Bible contains all truth, but was written down by humans, translated, rettranslated, edited, copied, and many texts left out or others added, by humans, albeit prayerfully. No wonder then that this argument has echoed through the church for millennia, and the truth is not discern able even to the wise! Now we see through a glass darkly... Our great commission is not to condemn those who sin but to bring them the good news of God's forgiveness achieved in Christ's death and resurrection. If indeed we have sinned and we all have, it is for the Holy Spirit to work in our hearts to convict us, WHATEVER the sin. I am saddened by the seeming belief of some here that it is WE who change people, not God, and that WE DECIDE who needs to be changed. God must despair of our small-minded ways.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Leslie, the problem of what reading is authoritative is indeed one that has occurred in the past. I have only found one solution that makes any sense, and it is the Vincentian Canon, commonly called the Commonitorium. St. Vincent wrote at a time when schisms were rampant and variant reads of the scriptures were surfacing all around the empire. Bishops from far flung corners were teaching different things. He asked the same question and came up with an inspired answer, "that which has been believed always, everywhere and by all - appealing to consensus, antiquity and universality." We are in an even better position to apply this rule since more time has passed and the church has ridden on the back of many other societies and social/theological changes. So if we take this to mean that the Holy Spirit has been pointing to a "constant" of faith and practice, things in common that have been witnessed in the Church over 2000 years, then we have a pretty good rule that supersedes the tyranny of any single age and set of social mores. The Holy Spirit has had 2000 years to direct the church. If we are to change something as divisive as the moral teaching of the church on homosexuality, it is not up to any single church and we cannot fully trust our context to properly inform us. It is tainted by our social conditions and worldview. The authority to change it does not lie within any single group. We must submit to the mind of the church. I strike this conversation to the prominent place sexual liberty currently has in western society and consider it a temporary (the last 50 yrs) social condition. When viewed against the flow of history it takes on an entirely different color. Not that homosexuality hasn't always been around, but that only recently has it ever been attempted to be made by the church a normative behavior.
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Evans
Evans Clements • I have been following this discussion from the beginning and it seems to me that there are two things that need to be discussed on their own. As to whether homosexuality is a sin, I like the comments that @Bob O'Brien made. Homosexuality is a sin, as are sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage for heterosexuals, as is adultery. Fornication pretty much covers all of the bases here. It is written that all sin is equal in the eyes of God. I know that I have and will continue to sin, and my sin is no worse or better than that of the non-celibate gay population. It is for me to repent of my sin, and to not continue in the sin. This is true fro all of us when we sin. Our repentance is between us and God, not man, so let Him be the one to judge us.
I personally believe homosexuality is a sin, and do not agree with the lifestyle, however, as I said, I am not one to judge or cast stones. I believe that it is incumbent on all of us as Christians to love and include our homosexual brothers and sisters in our common and spiritual life. Hate the sin, love the sinner. That goes for all of us.That does not mean we have to condone their lifestyles any more than they need to condone ours. That is between God and the individual, not man.
I will continue my second though on another thread.
1 month ago
• Unlike
4
Follow Evans
Evans Clements • My second thought is that much of the discussion currently deals with the subject of same sex marriage and civil rights. I sincerely believe that there are a large number of same sex couple that are deeply in love and committed to each other, and I believe that they are equally due the same rights under the secular law as any couple. Again, this does not mean I condone the relationship, just that they are due the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.
As far as Holy Matrimony is concerned, I am vehemently opposed to same sex blessings or marriage in the Church, and I do not agree with the Church creating same sex Rites for the BCP. I see this issue as being pretty clearly stated in the Scriptures; that Holy Matrimony is between one man and one woman.To be fair, I believe this to be true for heterosexual adulterers and those who have divorced as well. Holy Matrimony is a Sacrament of the Church, and is well defined in the Scriptures. I see no middle ground on this.
Many will consider my opinions on Holy Matrimony and Civil Unions as hypocritical. If you do, I am sorry, but I do not see it that way. I don't know if some are born as homosexuals, or if they evolve. As they say, that is above my pay grade to comment on, but I do think that trying to change the definition of Holy Matrimony is wrong, and is not for us, or the government to do. Homosexual Christians have to look to their faith and recognize that, that ordained by God is not for man to change.
1 month ago
• Unlike
2
Follow Nick
Nick Overduin • I firmly believe that within 10 years homosexual marriages will be completely acceptable even in some hard-line Islamic countries that are using Sharia Law. So I do not think it makes much sense anymore to debate homosexuality in doctrinaire or vicious ways. The time for talking has ended and the time for embracing our fellow human beings has come. For those who still care about exegesis, there are some profoundly new and moving ways to read the few Bible verses that are often brought into play here. Endorsing committed relationships and marriages is actually a very conservative thing for the Christian church to do, considering the many forces that destabilize the gay community, just as we witness the many forces undermine integrity in the heterosexual community.
Nick Overduin.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Nick, I think you are pretty starry eyed with that perspective. Homosexual marriage in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran within ten years? ROFL. I at least admire the empathy that all you progressive sorts have. No one can fault you that! I have empathy too, but I will hold to good old fashioned apostolic faith and order. I'll let you guys explain before God how you led people to accept same sex marriage, et al. I still have love and concern, deep concern for my homosexual brothers and sisters. I just can't allow the sincerely held perspective of one generation speak louder than all the other voices in the Church that have have gone before. I chose to divorce myself from this present cultural tyranny and hold to the supra-culture of Apostolic teaching guided by the Holy Spirit. That being said I would not be surprised in the least (in fact I expect it) that same sex marriage will become normalized in the West. The state is not the Kingdom of God. The state has enshrined the taking of the lives of the unborn into law, it can and will do whatever else it can on whatever issue suits it. As long as the state doesn't come after me and lock me up for my sincerely held belief (but I expect it will). The day will come when the "tolerant" will lock up the religiously "intolerant", calling them names and demonizing them and mis-characterizing their faith and love (this is already happening). I hope you will advocate for my rights when I am in prison for standing on my sincerely held beliefs.
1 month ago
• Unlike
2
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • In a world that sees depravity as postmodernity, ideas such as Nick's are true to nature. But such convictions and expectations show how futile, vile and debauched our modernity has grown not only in encouraging homosexual behaviour but other vices too.
Romans 1:25-32
(25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
(27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting.
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not proper;
(29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
(30) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
(31) Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
(32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
.
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Nick
Nick Overduin • I do think it is a done deal, yes. Five years ago I said 15 years, so I
will stick to my guns on this one. Ten more years, and Sharia law will
find a way to permit it also. You can quote me on it a decade from now.
I think the topic, in principle, has become passe. Nick.
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • The point homosexualists make about having no sexual attraction to the opposite sex is no license for homosexual behaviour. Even if one has sexual attraction to same sex (as fornication desire is in many), one is to mortify such desires and resist practicing them. That is how transformation from every sinful motion comes. But to stay in any sinful disposition or argue that pointing one to transform is not love or not inclusive or is a new revelation is far from truth but self deception, all of which cannot be of Christ.
Any Christ-following Christian would admit his/her sinful nature, orientation, disposition and desires but would not fight for that sinful nature to be sustained and nurtured more and more. Christians would know that Christ would expect them to sin no more.
The absurdity of homosexualists is that they are fighting to establish one sinful disposition leaving other sins which are all orientations and dispositions out. Or is this in preparation to establishing every other sinful disposition?
If the power of the Gospel has saved many from several sinful nature, orientation and disposition as well as sinful acts and behaviour, then those with homosexual passion can be save from such depravity if only they believe.
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Ifechukwu, I think that homosexuality is a little more problematic. Most sins we commit are conceived of as "acts separated from the self", while homosexuality is conceived of as an act intrinsic to nature. In other words, a homosexual does not separate his or her homosexual acts from their self-identity. Another problem, in my opinion, is that having worked with people with compulsive behaviors, many gay men have multiple partners irrespective of any relationship. For many of these men these serial sexual encounters, often with very risky behaviors, bear a much closer resemblance to a compulsive disorder than to anything approaching "love". Where homosexual activity is accompanied by this sort of risky behavior it will take more (without miraculous intervention) than just a "salvation experience". It will take years of counseling, behavior modification, and prayer. This will beg the question, Do I believe in sexual reparative therapy? In some cases, yes. In all cases, probably not.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • You are right, Matthew, but every sin is a product of the sinful nature and passions of the flesh. Some homosexuals immediately lose their homosexual desires at conversion. Others need extra intervention to be free. Some simply end up with celibacy and others have the tendency but able to drop the behaviour. But to leave homosexuality to remain nutured and sustained makes nonsense of the saving power of the Gospel.
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Chief Apostle John
Chief Apostle John Mix • Pastor Hicks:
You forgot to end that verse and JESUS SAID GO AND "SIN NO MORE" And your sin is forgiven. Have forgotten what Jesus said to us he not only do I do great things , watch this he said YOU THAT IS YOU PASTOR HICKS WILL DO EVEN GREATER THINGS!!! Why are you trying to except Homosexuallity it is a Abomination from God!!! I am not talking about the person I am talking about the sin in there lives. Are we just to throw the baby out with the bath water!!!! When you wash a baby you take the dirt and filth off of them!! That is the sin the Stronghold spirit!! The sexual perversion spirit the dirt the filth. Wash them Pastors lay hands on them and command those unclean spirits to go. tare there roots down and there foundations and bind these unclean spirits up into the pit of hell with fire and brimstone and bind these unclean spirits up lost in the dry places in the name of Jesus Christ!!!! Amen!! Why are you afraid of Satan he has no authority over you!! Jesus said as he made that covenant I GIVE YOU ALL AUTHORITY AND DOMINION OVER EVERYTHING THAT IS NOT OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD!!!! YOU!!!! stop saying you can do nothing because you can. You have power and dominion over all of these unclean Spirits. Destroy them in the name of Jesus. You are a Warrior act like one or Abba will remove his Spirit from your church!!!! I DARE YOU TO LAY HANDS ON SOMEONE IN YOUR CHURCH THAT IS GAY AND SAY THE PRAYER I JUST GAVE YOU!!! AND BELIEVE YOU HAVE POWER AND DOMINION OVER THESE SPIRITS THE HOLLY GHOST WILL SHOW UP LIKE YOU NEVER SEEN BEFORE. It won't take years of counseling just 5 min of faith to believe you can cast that mountain into the sea!!! Watch that unclean spirit come off of them and they will never go back to that life style again!!! Abba sent his Son Jesus Christ to teach us that’s right us on how to get it done now start acting like ministers of God and go after those unclean spirits!!! Oh yes just to let you know there is no mother nature. God is the only one GOD NO MOTHER NATUTRE GOD!!!! I have posted many comments and many of you have responded positive and negative I love every signal one of you and I have posted my phone number and web site I invite you to call me. We have a lot to talk about!!! God Bless YOU!! Shabot!! Shaolm!!!
Chief Apostolic Apostle Archbishop Dr. John Mix
601-262-5292
www.peciccc.org
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Stanislaus K
Stanislaus K Tsingo • We can all talk ourselves to an early grave but it won't change the fact that the world and some churches have embraced homosexuality. Lets face it its here to stay. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have an opinion on it one way or the other or that we shouldn't express our opinions. What saddens me is the fact that in a lot of cases we cannot do so without insulting one another.
For mine own part, I'm not going to quote the bible, offer authoritative texts etc, I'm just going to say the church is in this world but NOT of this world but we seem determined to alter this to the church is in this world and of this world because once the secular world accepts something, the church is not far behind. I embrace homosexuality as a human condition, I embrace that there is an element of choice in how homosexuals choose to live their lives and express their love and I would march in the front row with any of them protesting being deprived their right to do so, by worldly governments.
Christ loved all that came to him in faith, Jew or non-Jew, he healed Romans and Gentiles as he did Jews, however he did not select any non-Jews to be among the 12.
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Pastor Mix, I understand your Pentecostalism, and I fully believe in the power of Jesus to heal, cast out demons, etc. I understand "stronghold spirits" and the sort of faith you practice. I am also a pastoral counselor and spiritual director and have worked with people with compulsive disorders. There have been numerous people who have come to me for help over the years who have been prayed over as you describe above and it has caused confusion, despair, relapse, and even the loss of faith. There is a neuro-biological component to some "sins". A brain tumor pressing on the right area can (and has in documented cases) caused pedophilia-like impulses, for example. Behaviors repeated prime the body for certain chemical responses under the occurrence of certain triggers. The brain literally wires sin into its neurology as new brain cells and synapses form along those behaviors and thought patterns. When God does not miraculously heal a person of both their physiological and psychological causes of sin (whether that is from a lack of faith or whatever) then insisting that such a person is healed when they are not is damaging. Compassionate careful counsel is called for under these conditions.
And one more thing (a pet peeve). Do some spell checking. Misspelling words (like Holly instead of Holy) detracts from your credibility.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Chief Apostle John
Chief Apostle John Mix • When Abba gives you and asignment he will tell you to speak to that tumor and be it removed by the Holy Ghost!! if you are under command of the Father everything will be cleasned and cleaned by the son blood Jesus Christ!!!
Chief Apostolic Apostle Archbishop Dr. John Mix
601-262-5292
www.peciccc.org
1 month ago
• Like
Ezekiel Wanje • I agree that the chief apostolic apostle should use a spell checker.
1 month ago
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Homosexual orientation (passion) and behavour (practice) are "unnatural" and symptoms of deviance, depravity or disease (biological or spiritual). There is no homosexual gender. There are only male and female genders.
The passion (orientation) is at least temptation but the practice (behaviour) is sin by all Christian standards.
We all have our own spiritually unhealthy passions and practices which needs to be dealt with to varrying extents Like every other carnal lust (compulsive, obsessive or otherwise) such passions and practices have to be unmistakably seen for what they are by the Church, as meant to be consciensously but compassionately identified, denounced, discouraged and mortified without molesting those that have such issues. Here is the Apostolic counsel:
Col 3:1-8 KJV2000
(1) If you then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sits on the right hand of God.
(2) Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
(3) For you are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
(4) When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall you also appear with him in glory.
(5) Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
(6) For which things' sake the wrath of God comes on the children of disobedience:
(7) In which you also once walked, when you lived in them.
(8) But now you also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy talk out of your mouth.
Striving to retain, sustain, revive and nurture such inordinate passions is antithetical to the biblical Gospel of salvation.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Andrew P
Andrew P Hicks • Time for me to exit this community of largely closed minds and spend my time more usefully in trying through God's grace rather than my poor efforts to bring the good news of the FORGIVENESS of sins rather than hellfire and damnation for those -all of us - who fall short of perfection.. I will leave it to the Holy Spirit to guide those who listen and not judge them myself.
Yours in love, and sadness over our lack of love and compassion.
Andrew (I'm not a Pastor nor am I a self proclaimed chief apostle, merely aware that I am called to witness as we all are. And at least I am Anglican!)
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Nick
Nick Overduin • Yes, these are not really like "conversations", are they? They sound more
like reverberating echoes within various silos. That is so sad. I am
not sure what to do about that, either. But I do think all the debating
will soon be over....as I said, within ten years. I have noticed that
straight people lack the stamina to keep killing themselves while arguing
about 2% of the population. They get exhausted and resign themselves to
the new future. It is interesting, on this particular issue, that the
younger generation gets tired even quicker than the older generation.
Usually it is the other way around, since our exhaustion is partly
physical. Nick Overduin.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Andrew, we are all in the business of preaching forgiveness of sins. It is unfair and uncharitable to cast those who hold a different position as not doing so. The difference is that those who hold a different opinion to yours believe that forgiveness is coupled with repentance and that this issue requires both. I could lament your lack of commitment to the truth and sound theology as you (in a rather self-righteous way) lament the lack of compassion of those who disagree with. Lets agree that we all have compassion, shall we?
An opinion based on the wrong idea is still wrong, no matter how sincerely you hold it. Hold your opinion lightly and seek truth and knowledge. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Andrew P
Andrew P Hicks • Matthew,
I will agree perhaps that we all have some degree of compassion. The thing that upsets me is the demonisation of those who I as a recently retired family doctor with many gay friends and patients, find to be gentle loving, often Christian folk who put our efforts and often our faith and witness to shame. I am as committed to truth and to sound theology as you are but my reading of the bible gives me a different emphasis to yours. I believe that it is the Holy Spirit not i who works in people's hearts to bring them to repentance, if indeed they need to repent of this which in my clinical experience is more biological in nature than a matter of choice.. Surely there are more important issues to concentrate on.
Self righteous, perhaps, but all of us in this thread believe ourselves to be right, do we not, and yet our views are poles apart - so you and I, brother, are BOTH by our own mouths condemned of this.
' an opinion based on the wrong idea is still wrong, no matter how sincerely it is held'... Is your idea wrong, or mine? Let us pray that the Holy Spirit will lead us nearer to God's truth on this issue - but I don't think it will happen via this thread.
The beginning of wisdom comes through God working in our hearts, not through fear, as I understand Jesus' words.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Ronald
Ronald Charles • I will only make one comment on this post. Whether people want to believe it or not, God did create everyone and everything. God has blessed everyone with certain gifts and talents. It is up to you as an individual to realize your gifts and talents and put them to use for the good of God's kingdom. God has also created a world where there is very little absolute black and white, but a lot of gray. And so it is with sexuality. Again, whether people want to believe it or not, sexuality is on a continuum, with extreme heterosexuality on one end of the spectrum and extreme homosexuality on the other. The majority of us live in the middle somewhere. You may not want to admit it to yourself and due to how, when, and where you were raised may cause you to have some issues with this statement, but if the reasonable person who is open minded and not trying to pontificate really evaluate the statement, you will find that this is true. As a scientist, research has shown that there is truly a genetic basis for homosexuality when you look at the incidence within families. Studies have shown an 80% concordance in identical twins. That is the nature side of the argument.
On the nurture side, there are also a number of socioenvironmental factors that can influence someone to develop a an attraction to the same sex. I will not go into all of those influences, but suffice it to say they are numerous. So as a result, it can be nature, nurture, or a combination of the two that creates who we are as sexual beings.
As a Christian, I am not going to debate with you on whether homosexuality is right or wrong. I will say that if a person has been created by God to be a certain way because God who is the master and author of all needs that person to interact in the world a certain way and that no one has the authority to judge another person on an aspect of their behavior that does not bring harm to another human being. Jesus has given us only two commandments: That we love God and that we love our neighbors as ourselves. So, what is really important is that we live by these two commandments, which will help us to live by the other ten commandments, which truth be told, are the real laws that God wants us to live by.
1 month ago
• Like
3
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Andrew, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" is a direct quote from proverbs 9:10.
Another good one is "By steadfast love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the LORD one turns away from evil." Prov 16:6 We all need to hold both of these in tension.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Chris
Chris Appleby • Chris Dalliston says: "A question to Ezekiel - although Jesus said he hadn't come to change the law he did quite clearly at least radically re-interpret it didn't he?" It's interesting that when Jesus "re-interprets" the law it generally seems to come out more stringent than before - murder now includes hatred; love your neighbor becomes love your enemies; an eye for an eye becomes forgive those who harm you; do not commit adultery becomes don't even look on a woman with lust; rather gouge out your eye and throw it away; if your hand causes you to stumble cut it off and throw it away. So what do you think he might have said in "re-interpreting" homosexual behaviour?
Derek Turner says "Nobody is born a thief, fornicator or adulterer. Whether you like it or not some people are born (created by God) with homosexual orientation. No one chooses it. Live with it." Actually I would have thought that in this fallen world we're all born fornicators - which probably means we're born adulterers unless we control our natural instincts. It's only our decision to remain celibate until we find a life partner of the opposite sex that allows us to stay faithful to God's intention for humanity. Which leads me to question the popular suggestion that God has created some with homosexual orientation. Why would that particular distortion of God's design for sexuality be different from the heterosexual orientation to fornication.
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Chris, you make some very good points. Someone had, earlier in the discussion, pointed out that some percentage of the animal population displayed homosexual proclivity. This got me thinking, "Do we take our moral direction from animals? Do they set the standard? Can the animal world be used to justify human behaviors?" Animals make war on each other, devour each other, devour their mates and their children, etc." If so then we can justify making war, cannibalism, and abortion (and, as China is doing, turning fetuses into sexual performance pills). So if some animals practice homosexual activity that is supposed to justify it?
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Andrew P
Andrew P Hicks • Matthew, I know where your quote comes from. Please don't patronise me.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Bob
Bob O'Brien • The biggest problem with this whole discussion is the idea that we cannot call sin sin. We are to accept a behavior which in both the Old and New Testaments is condemned and declared immoral. Either God is God and what is written in what we claim is the Word of God and is said to be God breathed is true or the entire book is a lie and needs to be thrown into the trash where some would have us place it. I will stand with, I think it was, Aaron who said "As for me and my house we will serve the Lord."
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Chris
Chris Appleby • In fact it twas Joshua, Bob - Josh 24 - good reference - the point was, don't promise to follow the LORD unless you really mean it because if you commit then change your mind you call down God's judgment on you. That's Joshua's commentary not mine BTW.
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Bill
Bill Watson • Good for you, but do beware of self-righteousness.
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 09:10:42 +0000
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Bob
Bob O'Brien • Thanks for the correction. Here is a link to a blog post which gives a more balanced approach to the subject than many of us here. http://geoffsurratt.com/
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Bill
Bill Watson • So much of this depends upon whether one accepts the fact, as I do, that sexual orientation is a given, tempered, usually, by nurture. the unnateural acts cited by St Paul, an inspired human being, but human, nevertheless, who is thought by some to be a chaste, but closetted homosexual, is practised today by a significant number of heterosexuals as well.
I say again, with all of the facets of our chaotic world, why is there so much attention paid to sexual orientation. Look at the response to this debate. Jesus railed against pride, hypocrisy and self-righteousness. Would a debate on any of these provoked anywhere near the attention that this is doing???
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Bill
Bill Watson • No, it doesn't, BUT it is of significance. Many human beings, unfortunatately, do preactise many facets of animal behaviiour.This doe NOT make it right, BUT it is not without significance.
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Bill
Bill Watson • It likely is not different. However, if hs is a given, which I think it is, than surely such persons ought to be able to marry. Fornication and adultery are serious questions for consideration but hs ought not to ba anymore of a consideration than gender, race, or colour.
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Bill
Bill Watson • Yes, indeed. Jesus didn't even mention the word, 'homosexual', although he did speak of adultery, and, to a lesser extent, fornication. In any event, in this our over populated world of chaotic finance, hunger, poverty, shocksational journalism, global warming, self-indulgence, et cetera, let's put this question in perspective and let's pray for understanding and the ability to discuss ALL of these concerns, and ever so many others, sensitively and respectfully.
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Bill, (1) our focus on the discussion is simply because it was posted as a topic of discussion. So we are discussing it. I don't spend my life discussing this issue. But in this forum those who wish to engage in dialogical pugilism over the issue may. (2) At its heart the discussion is not about homosexuality but about authority. I have raised this issue before. To put it another way, "what is the truth about truth and who owns it". Who is speaking authoritatively for the Christian community? Which "read" of the scriptures represents an authoritative one. To date no one has taken up this challenge. I submit that those who reinterpret the scriptures outside of their historical understanding within the "mind" (phrenos) of the believing community cannot claim a position of authority because they are following the current local (as understood in time) Western social progressive culture. Thereby suffering from a certain kind of tyranny of time and culture. The only way to escape this is to accept a catholic perspective, as put forward by St. Vincent of Lerins. Again, I expect no one will take up this idea in discussion.
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Chris
Chris Appleby • Matthew, I couldn't agree more. Bill's discussion of fornication/adultery v a committed relationship avoids the question, "Why did Jesus rail against these sins?" My answer would be because they go against the creation mandate of a man leaving his father and motehr and cleaving only to his wife. That applies as far as I can see to fornication, adultery and homosexual behaviour.
As for why we're discussing this, it is an Anglican Communion discussion group and the response to Homosexual behaviour is the major issue dividing Anglicans at the moment, isn't it?
1 month ago
• Like
1
Ezekiel Wanje • Why is this debate generating a lot of interest, someone poses. What do you
have to say about the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? They were completely
reduced to rubble and fire and brimstone rained on them. Was this a small
matter to the extent that here some people are saying we should discuss
things like how the environment is being degraded because this is more
important to God than small matters like homosexuality. I want to submit
that if environmental issues are more important than homosexuality then how
much environmental degradation was done at Sodom and Gomorrah because of
this behaviour alone? I read somewhere that pride in Christianity is
defined by man's refusal to accept God's guidance. God created male and
female and said that it was not good for a man to stay alone and he created
a helper, a woman, for him. Now people have said that the helper is not
necessary. That men can just stay together. Is this the plan of God?
1 month ago
1
Ezekiel Wanje • In answer to Chris Appleby's question "A question to Ezekiel - although Jesus said he hadn't come to change the law he did quite clearly at least radically re-interpret it didn't he?" It's interesting that when Jesus "re-interprets" the law it generally seems to come out more stringent than before - murder now includes hatred; love your neighbor becomes love your enemies; an eye for an eye becomes forgive those who harm you; do not commit adultery becomes don't even look on a woman with lust; rather gouge out your eye and throw it away; if your hand causes you to stumble cut it off and throw it away. So what do you think he might have said in "re-interpreting" homosexual behaviour?"
I would say that even though Jesus said that an eye for an eye becomes forgive one another, yet he did not condemn the present and future judicial systems in place at that time because they relied on this principle. If you steal my property the police will take you to court and you will be punished until you return the property. Unless you want to tell us that Christians should not fight injustices any more but forgive every injustice, Jesus himself had to pay for our sins by dying on the cross. He could have merely forgiven the sins; However, he had to pay for the consequences of such sins on our behalf. The wages of sin is death. Instead of us dying for our sins, he died instead. There are some countries in this world where practicing homosexuality is illegal and offenders are apprehended and sentenced. We certainly can't say that Jesus came to change right into wrong and vice versa! On the contrary, he came to fulfill the law
1 month ago
1
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Jesus actually stated that what He was doing in Matt 5 was not going contrary to the Law but correction of falsehood and insincerity of the interpreters of the Law. Notice the introductory phrase to every topic "you have heard that it was said".
As for "an eye for an eye", it was meant for jurisprudence but these faulty interpreters used it for etrajudicial vengance.
They also used the other issues raised by Christ there to only lehalistic extent but Christ brought in the fact that on personal application they speak morally not just legally.
I think this is evidently the point Christ was making in Matthew 5. What does someone think differently?
The Word of God is not only to objectively criticise others but also for subjective self criticism.
In the Christian Faith, the Scriptures remain the most accurate and the highest possible authority. Other contrary ideas or cultural values (old or new, African, Easter or Western) are all heathen and in error, and cannot overrule not outdate the Scriptures contrary to the Scripture.
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Good point Ifechukwu. The problem in the West is that there are many people who no longer view the scriptures as the highest authority. Critical method. postmodernism and universalism have undermined the meaning of the scriptures. This is why it is possible to have a dialogue between those who justify homosexuality as a lifestyle and those who do not while both quote the scriptures. The problem is that we are reading the scriptures differently. I have seen by your other posts that you often quote scriptures. That will have no effect on your counterparts in the discussion because they do not believe in the authority of scripture in the same way you do. In the end this is a problem of how the scriptures are read and the community they are read from and in.
1 month ago
• Like
3
Follow Nick
Nick Overduin • I read the Scriptures as the absolutely authoritative word of God. I also
notice that they do not comment on the concept of commited same-sex
relationships. Thus I take my cue for that issue on biblical norms such
as faithfulness, loyalty, intimacy, compassion, etc. This is not a
problem between people who take the Bible seriously versus those who do
not. I preach Christ, and him crucified, every Sunday.
Nick.
1 month ago
• Like
4
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Nick,
I cannot preach the Crucified Christ without pointing at the need to crucify homosexual instincts and other carnal and inordinate passions. It would not make sense to me.
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Nick, i never suggested that either side takes the scriptures less seriously than the other. What I am talking about is how our context shapes our understanding of the scriptures, the work of interpretation. I would submit that you and I are reading the scriptures seriously but from two very different "world views". The scriptures themselves do not have the intention of commenting on every development among men. They say nothing about abortion, drug use, psychology, space travel, human and organ cloning, genetic manipulation, seed hybridization, etc.....Our work is then is in taking the very process you suggest and build an ethical response to each of these challenges. The problem is "which community will have greater influence in interpreting these ethical demands" our own cultural setting in time or the mind of the universal church across time. My suggestion is that the most reliable means of discerning the truth is to locate the source of authority in the believing community across time. This can save us from the tyranny of our particular cultural setting. Your cultural setting (Canada) is particularly liberal on sexual issues. That MUST influence your hermeneutical process. How can you be sure you are not "contaminated" by your cultural setting in your processing of these complex issues? You cannot be, because you are immersed in your culture. Fish are not aware of the water they swim in. Your understanding of the scriptures and ethical applications have got to be tempered by something outside of your cultural setting. The Spirit of God has been speaking in diverse times and cultures for thousands of years. What we should look for is the norming norm, the "mean" in faith and practice. By these standards homosexual relationships are, at BEST, highly suspect and far outside of the norm in the revelation of God to the mind of His people across time and cultural settings.
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Ronald
Ronald Charles • @ EZekiel: Sodom and Gemorrah was destroyed because the people were inhospitable to the visitors that came to their city and also they were raping the visitors to the city.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Ronald, THAT is a selective reading. Only those who wish to exclude homosexuality as a sin read it that way. But since the time of Sodom the act and the city have been synonymous. It's a stretch.
1 month ago
• Unlike
2
Follow Bill
Bill Watson • Yes, perhaps, but it is accurate, however great the would be 'stretch'. However, it is true that sodomy means anal sex involving penetration, as act which is practised by both homosexuals and heterosexuals. It is unfortunate that this translation has been made, but it has, nevertheless.
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Ronald
Ronald Charles • Matthew, and the way you are looking at it is also selective reading. Those who wish to include homosexuality as a sin is reading it the way you and those who choose to do a literal interpretation of the Bible will interpret it the way you are doing. Bill is correct in that the definition of sodomy is a man derived definition based upon how someone chose to define that act and their interpretation of the Sodom and Gemorrah story.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • I know that Ronald. But if you read my previous comments about the interpretive community you would understand how I can do this and how it is legitimate.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Ronald
Ronald Charles • So you doing it is legitimate and someone else who opposes your stance is not legitimate? Well, I believe that I have had enough of this discussion. I know that I have seen how God has blessed people who are straight, gay, bi, and trans due to their good works and behavior towards their fellow man. God loves all of his children even those who are unaware of God's love of them. Just remember: Judge not lest ye be judged!
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Ronald, now, lets not get too sensitive. Read the post I referred to and engage that line of thought. It discusses the problems of authority and the interpretive community. I am not merely using that to say that my opinion is legitimate and yours is not. I would ask you to engage the substance of the argument that I made earlier (approximately 7 posts up), not walk away taking offense in some superficial way and defaulting to some Sunday School aged argument. This is a serious topic with serious theological implications. Making shallow retorts like that simply cause your opinion to be dismissed as sophomoric. Let's have a manly discussion without getting our knickers in a twist.
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Ronald
Ronald Charles • Matthew, believe me, I am not too sensitive and my knickers are not in a twist. And to state that my statement is a Sunday School aged argument is quite insulting. And whether you choose to dismiss my opinion as sophomoric is certainly your perogative. I am making a choice to no longer engage in the discussion because the discussion really is not going anywhere and I have made the choice to no longer engage in it. I wish God's speed to you and everyone continuing in the discussion.
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Jain
Jain Galliford • Having got a day off and its raining, so I can't go gardening, I have spent a few moments reading all of the above about homosexuality. You know, the devil is winning, when folks spend so much time debating sexuality. Get a life, get real, get out there and bring people to know the amazing love of our Lord Jesus, we are coming to Pentecost. Go to the people and for goodness sake, stop the sex stuff and bring in the Lords love to heal. Only he can change lives and whilst you folks are so busy, the devil loves it. Have a GOD filled day.
1 month ago
• Like
4
Follow Marc
Marc Wolverson • Derek, I don't care what your views on sexual ethics are, your use of the "n" word is extremely racist and highly offensive! You devalue your own credibility and point of view by resorting to such horrendous language!!
1 month ago
• Like
3
Follow Richard
Richard Dixon • Brothers and Sisters, what does the Lord require of us? That we act Justly, love Mercy and walk Humbly with our God. Some of our comments are sadly lacking in these qualities.
I will drop my stone and silently walk away.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Scott
Scott Elliott • I do not understand why this "conversation" has continued for a week. It has devolved into the same shouting back and forth from entrenched positions which these conversations seem always to do. One participant's use of "nigger" brings it to a new low, but it is otherwise unremarkable, and, of course, is useless at best and harmful at worst.
Has any participant in this debacle felt heard or understood by anyone else? -- or even genuinely listened-to? Has anyone's opinion been changed, however slightly, by your participation? Has anyone felt the love of God or of neighbor any more strongly or fully? Has anyone felt LESS self-righteous, LESS certain of one's starting position? Has the Body of Christ been built up, in any sense and however slightly, or have you simply been wounding him more and more and more?
I didn't think so. So stop. And don't start again.
1 month ago
• Like
7
Follow Craig
Craig Coulson • Scott, it is unfortunate that some people don't understand what a discussion is. They seem to think you have to push their barrow down the other person's throat. This topic was never going to be anything other than a slanging match. I left the "Theology" platform because that had been taken over by a group that felt they were omnipotent, and their views were all powerfu,l and they interpretated God's will on earth. Oh well, we can't all be right can we!
1 month ago
• Like
3
Follow Jain
Jain Galliford • Sense prevails, while you guys are arguing about sex, the devil is winning, use your precious time to go out and bring people to know the Lords love, rather than bickering with each other. Go on, show your love and care for all, walk the streets and take the Lord's love out of church and to mankind
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • What I've learned so far in this conversation: I've learned that both sides are intrenched in their positions and that all the talk about "conversation" and "indaba" will not go anywhere. I have learned that those who advocate for homosexual unions or wish the church to "declassify" homosexuality as a sin seem to be unable to address the larger problem of authority. This may be because there were few in this discussion capable of dealing with the issues I raised in this regard or they were new issues that people had not been exposed to. I have learned that "Scripture slinging" is as effective at building understanding as throwing a grenade (which underscores by points about authoritative community). I've learned that some homosexual proponents who are good men who love the Lord and consider themselves relatively evangelical, seem to be unable to hold the line on what the Christian community has always believed in regards to the scriptures on the topic AND consider themselves or others to be loving and accepting of homosexual people. Apparently some believe that you cannot be both. I've learned that those who are opposed to such behavior (and of course all sinful behavior, not just this) and express those ideas are considered to be proud or arrogant in defending their idea. I also agree that his conversation need not continue, that the battle lines are drawn, that the church is divided and Anglicanism will divide along these issues, that it is a sad day for Christ's church.
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Bob
Bob O'Brien • The discussion here is just one aspect of a larger problem and that is how one defines the authority of scripture, and what do tradition and reason have to say about what is written in the scriptures. Does authority lie only in the scripture or is there room for a reasonable interpretation of the written word and does our tradition have any weight in the theological discussion. I do not believe that the debate over sexuality is the real issue. I believe that it is the presenting issue which leads to a much larger problem and it is the larger problem that needs to be addressed if Anglicanism is to survive in its present form.
1 month ago
• Like
4
Follow Carol
Carol Bustard-Burnside • I appreciate Bob's comment because it echoes what I have thought for a long time when we engage in these discussions, about this issue or other issues of theology or of interpretation of scripture. My mind and heart go to the Elizabethan Settlement. To me the blessing of Anglicanism is that we are not obliged to judge each other's behavior or opinions. We worship together while we agree or disagree on theological issues. We each are guided by the Holy Spirit when we ask for that guidance with open minds and hearts. And God is the only judge of how well each of us has heard and followed that guidance. We can pray for each other and for ourselves to have clarity of mind and heart, courage of conviction, and strength in the midst of trials. Stating that another person is wrong or sinful or ignorant is not helpful and misses the point. We are a worshipping community, not a political party.
"Day by day, day by day, O dear Lord, three things I pray; to see Thee more clearly, love Thee more dearly, follow Thee more nearly, day by day."
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Hey Bob, glad to see somebody gets it. Carol, I appreciate your point, and believe it was an error of Anglicanism to adopt it. The fruit of that seed has now ripened. Eventually when you do this the parties at the table end up practicing a different faith and eventually the expressions are so far apart that they can no longer exist together. Anglicanism is in a period of reformation. It is a mistake to go back (can any of us go back to what we were ten years ago?), we can only go forward. We can do this by rediscovering the early church and the faith they held in common, reclaim it and move forward.
1 month ago
• Unlike
4
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • When you seek to put forth Scriptural views you are giving authority to the Scripture.
When you seek to put forth modern Cultural views, you are giving authority to Modernity and Culture.
When your views are based on personal ideas or orientation, you are giving authority to yourself.
Much of the discussion on homosexuality and morality and sin is not really about these matters per se, but about authority. Culture is both transient and fleeting and personal ideas are myopic and unstable. To give authority to these against the Scripture is both unchristian and mistaken.
1 month ago
• Unlike
2
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Those who quote scripture (even if only minimally) to support the normalization of homosexuality subjugate the authority of scripture to other sources, both personal and cultural often without realizing it.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Neil
Neil Bryson • Jesus did not come to abolish the law - this is quoted above in support of continued oppression of homosexuals. Jesus went on to say that He came to fulfil it. We should reflect on what "fulfil" means. And take it in the context of the rest of the NT (no, not just the scant few verses about homosexual activity) where we, as Christians, are not under any obligation to the Jewish Law. It's very selective, this insistence on keeping a particular injunction from the OT. Now, what about the Sabbath? Ex 35:2 is uncompromising (and the Sabbath is on the 10 commandments), but do we really and truly think there should be the death sentence for those who break it; and how many of us keep it undefiled? And what about eating shellfish - that's an abomination, I suppose (Lev 11:10) and therefore those who do so should be excommunicated (or worse).
As we continue our reflection, we should be concentrating on thinking about "those things" commanded by St Paul, not obsessing about gay sex while ourselves committing the abomination that is eating lobster Thermidor.
1 month ago
• Like
3
Follow Wendy
Wendy Dackson • Hmm. Maybe we do need to think about marriage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Carol
Carol Bustard-Burnside • Matthew, I could not disagree with you more about the Elizabethan Settlement. It was and is Spirit-inspired genious! As has been pointed out in this discussion, the arguments about the interpretation of scripture generally lead to a lot of frustration and many of us descending to our lowest points, rather than leading us higher, toward being Christ to one another and seeing Christ in one another. The agreement to worship together while not having to agree on scriptural or theological points forces us, if we are committed to it, to humble ourselves in service to one another without regard for consensus. That, to me, is the high calling of Jesus to all of his followers. When we let the break-up of Anglicanism along scriptural and/or theological lines be an option for us, we have given in to the sin of putting our opinions above our service to each other and the Gospel. We have said that our own interpretations of the faith matter more than what Jesus has told us is the new commandment that his death and resurrection ushered in for us. When we die to the sin of our own hubris, we rise with him to new life.
1 month ago
• Like
1
Follow Wendy
Wendy Dackson • I completely agree with Carol. There is also something, in the whole 'debate' (diatribe?) about sexuality that should stop us cold when we read Jesus' own words about hypocrites who offer to remove the speck in their neighbor's eye while failing to see the log in their own, or about the story of the Pharisee who prays quite narcissistically about 'I thank God that I am not like that publican'. The more vociferously we have to attack the (perceived) sins of others, the more it probably means that we ourselves have something to hide.
I do realize I may be *completely* alone in this assessment, however.
1 month ago
• Like
3
Follow Carol
Carol Bustard-Burnside • On the subject of authority, I understand our three-legged stool of scripture, tradition, and reason/experience to be a SINGLE AUTHORITY. In other words, we have to prayerfully wrestle with the contradictions and agreements in all three to sit on the seat of the stool which rests equally on all three legs. We do this best by listening to each other as we would listen to Jesus, because no one person has all of the reason and all of the experience that needs to be part of the whole. When we lean more heavily on scripture, or make that leg the longest, we become Protestants. When we make the leg of tradition the longest, we become Roman Catholics. When we make the leg of reason/experience the longest leg, we become humanists or Unitarians. Anglicanism's unique offering to the whole Christian discussion of anything at all lies in our commitment to equalizing the three legs, and joining them to the seat of the stool through prayerful interaction in the holiness of our homes, our congregations, our dioceses, our provinces, and the whole of the Communion through the Lambeth Conferences and the Anglican Consutative Council. We have the amazing honor of being called to "the middle," not so that we can be wishy-washy, but so we can model what the love of Christ can look like in a world-wide community of Christians, committed to staying in communion, no matter what!
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Wendy
Wendy Dackson • Amongst the reasons for the Elizabethan settlement, the threefold authority, the listening, the prayerful wrestling with contradictions that Carol rightly and wisely cites, are (a) the fact that none of us knows the mind of Christ fully, and (b) none of us is without sin, so throwing stones from our glass houses should be considered completely inappropriate.
One of the big problems with this battleground (it cannot be called a 'debate' or 'discussion') is that it's so easy for people who aren't either homosexual or sympathetic to those who are, to make it a litmus test for all of authentic Christianity--because it's something that can be claimed as 'not me, so I'm safe'. And to point out, and rage over, the sins of others, is a very convenient way to deflect attention from the seriousness of our own sins, that are the result of 'blindness, weakness, or our own deliberate fault.' Of which not a single one of us are free.
On top of which--other peoples' sexuality is probably the least important thing we have to worry about (so long as it does not involve violence, coercion, or the abuse of trust/power--and *anything* that does that is sinful). How does someone else's private behavior affect very much of anything? It doesn't. The discussion itself is sinful, because it deflects attention from really important things, such as political oppression, economic injustice, environmental depradations.
But, I suppose, it's an *easy* thing to talk about, because it's easy to condemn. It's the little sins of the 'righteous' (myself included) that are, I think more dangerous because less attention is paid.
1 month ago
• Like
2
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Carol,
I love your conciliatory approach and insights on the three legs of Anglicanism, especially the analpgy of making any the legs longer. My problem however is that we know there is no canon of reason or canon of tradition/experience but there is canon of Scripture.
Please, do you have any conciliatory insights on making any of the legs shorter?
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Chief Apostle John
Chief Apostle John Mix • Pastor Bryson:
God Bless You!!! I want to say this to you with love. remind in Peter were father God lowered a great white sheet and God told peter to eat every unclean thing even the shell fish. Why is that you do not tell us why Abba did that for Peter and not us. That would make your reasoning much stronger. And Jesus Christ nailed to the cross in Colossians C2 V11 to V22
In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, but in a [spiritual] circumcision [performed by] Christ by stripping off the body of the flesh (the whole corrupt, carnal nature with its passions and lusts).
12 [Thus [g]you were circumcised when] you were buried with Him in [your] baptism, in which you were also raised with Him [[h]to a new life] through [your] faith in the working of God [[i]as displayed] when He raised Him up from the dead.
13 And you who were dead in trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your flesh (your sensuality, your sinful carnal nature), [God] brought to life together with [Christ], having [freely] forgiven us all our transgressions,
14 Having cancelled and blotted out and wiped away the handwriting of the note (bond) with its legal decrees and demands which was in force and stood against us (hostile to us). This [note with its regulations, decrees, and demands] He set aside and cleared [j]completely out of our way by nailing it to [His] cross.
15 [God] disarmed the principalities and powers that were ranged against us and made a bold display and public example of them, in triumphing over them in Him and in it [the cross].
16 Therefore let no one sit in judgment on you in matters of food and drink, or with regard to a feast day or a New Moon or a Sabbath.
17 Such [things] are only the shadow of things that are to come, and they have only a symbolic value. But the reality (the substance, the solid fact of what is foreshadowed, the body of it) belongs to Christ.
18 Let no one defraud you by acting as an umpire and declaring you unworthy and disqualifying you for the prize, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions [he claims] he has seen, vainly puffed up by his sensuous notions and inflated by his unspiritual thoughts and fleshly conceit,
19 And not holding fast to the Head, from Whom the entire body, supplied and knit together by means of its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
20 If then you have died with Christ to material ways of looking at things and have escaped from the world’s crude and elemental notions and teachings of externalism, why do you live as if you still belong to the world? [Why do you submit to rules and regulations?—such as]
21 Do not handle [this], Do not taste [that], Do not even touch [them],
22 Referring to things all of which perish with being used. To do this is to follow human precepts and doctrines.(A)
This Apostle is in this World but not of this World!!!! that is why I preach Christ Cruisifide and his true gospel the way Jesus Christ tought it not water down or desceaving smooth words. Stop this and there is no three legs we are all one in Christ!! Universal !!!! That maens there is only one Bible and please understanding the Bible is meant for a child to understand NIV nothing but the pit of hell!!! What would Jesus say about taking from or adding to!!!! And for once listen to this I am not judgeing anyone but I will say this by fact not my opinion by fact!! Homosexuallity is a sin and a abomination in God's eyes that is a fact!! if you are loving them like I do Great. I tell them that it is a sin, and tell them they are a victim, And those unclean spirits haft to go if they want them to. I do not embrace there actions, But I love them and show them the truth the life and the way!!! And the truth shall set you free!!! Call me!!!!
God Bless You!!
Chief Apostolic Apostle Archbishop Dr. John Mix
601-262-5292
www.peciccc.org
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Chief Apostle John
Chief Apostle John Mix • Brothers and Sisters just to add a note if you are in a another country I have skype it is free to have and to use www.skype.com download it and my user name is greatapostle1 I would love to video chat with any of you!!! hope to see your invite soon.
God Bless You!!!
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • There is always a mix-up that beclouds discussion such as this, between
CLARIFYING what SIN is on one hand and
CONDEMNING the SINNER who has done what is SINFUL on the other.
Jesus did not find it easy with the Pharisees on whom He even pronounced woes for their refusal to accept their sins. Even the disciples were rebuked for their unbelief and warned against betrayal. Christ never muddled up sin even when he showed love to the sinner.
We all are sinful sinners in one way or the other), but we must not because of this diminish the gravity of one sin or the other. Doing so diminishes the appreciation of the greatness of the salvation Christ has brought to us. This is the danger of the modern Cain-like, sin-diminishing or warning-resisting "spirituality". This new “spirituality” surprisingly posits that true Christian love which should seek to help a sinner out of sin is not love.
Even if you think you are not a sinner, blurring the clarity of what sin is, leads to falling into sin without knowing the harm and damage you do to your soul and so failing to seek salvation and transformation or failing to watch and resist temptation into sinful passions and practices.
I am usually glad when someone points out my sins especially clarifying it on Scriptural basis. And I do not hesitate to admit I have sinned as well as also repent and seek transformation depending on the potency of Christ's blood and power of the Holy Spirit. I do not hush people from pointing out my sins because it would not be helpful for me to run my race without recognising and laying besetting sins and weights aside. No sports champion could make records that way.
This is where discussions on homosexuality (and other vile and sinful passions mention in Romans 1 as mentioned at the beginning of this discussion) should lead to. I plead with homosexuals and homosexual sympathisers to accommodate the clarification of their sin or fad (as with any other sin and its supporters) in order to do something to escape the dangers and even eventual condemnation it carries (just like any other sin).
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • There is always a mix-up that beclouds discussion such as this, between
CLARIFYING what SIN is and repudiating such on one hand and
CONDEMNING and/or respecting the SINNER who has done what is SINFUL on the other.
Sin should always be distinguished from the sinner; this applies to those committing such sin and those condemning such sin. Condemning any sin is never the same as condemning any sinner.
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Neil
Neil Bryson • Further above there's the comment on the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Was this judgment on homosexuals? There are several points here. The men of the city gathered round demanding that Lot hand over the angels for them to have sex with them; for Lot to do so would have been a dreadful thing because they were under his protection. The sin here was not homosexual sex per se: it was conspiracy to rape.
"Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." (Eze 16:49 NKJV)
All that anyone seems to think concerning these two cities is homosexuality. It's not what Ezekiel says led to their destruction, so why is it singled out? And what about those other laws I quoted? Why are writers here obsessed with sex sin? I am not gay: I'm married with three sons, but I do take the point of someone I know who wondered why he was being condemned to hell by Christians who seemed to have no problem with City workers who exploited widows and orphans because it was "just business". Why isn't there an outcry on here against Sabbath-breakers or lobster-eaters?
Those of you setting yourselves up as judges, take heed of how Jesus came to fulfil the law:
And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?" But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them." And they went to another village. (Luke 9:54-56 NKJV)
1 month ago
• Like
Follow Fr. Don
Fr. Don Perschall • Neil: Say what ever you want - it does not change God's Word to us which contains this severe warning to everyone: "Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1Co 6:9-10
Quit excusing sin - the homosexuals and the "City workers who exploited widows and orphans" are equally condemned! Contrary to what some would have us believe, I know of no one who relishes the thought of people missing heaven - that is why we must condemn ALL sinful behavior. And btw Neil, our ONLY concern is to be for those in the church - " For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you." 1Co 5:12-13
29 days ago
• Like
2
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Neil, you make some very good points. The fact is that Sodom and Gomorrah were judged for much more than homosexuality. They were judged for the same things God always judges societies for: injustice, indifference towards the poor and marginalized, greed, and pride - as well as a vast array of sexual perversion and sins. Homosexuality was among them. You can't reduce the one attempt of forced rape reported in the text to simply that, and on some criteria (I don't know what you would use) separate out homosexuality. On what criteria can one remove homosexuality as one of the sins being judged? Where in that passage, or any other, is there an indication at all that homosexual behavior is merely a cultural artifact and not included in the general ban on sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and woman?
Secondly, the whole "you are setting yourselves as judges" thing is getting tiring. We are having a conversation about an important topic that is symptomatic of a larger problem that threatens Anglicanism. This is not about judging people to Hell, (while I admit that the consequence of a ban on homosexual behavior has this effect and is painful), it is fundamentally about the truth of the gospel and the consequences of declassifying this one sin. We are engaged in the theological context of our day over many heresies (this is one) just as in ages past. History will judge.
29 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Neil
Neil Bryson • Where do I say I'm excusing sin? What I'm drawing attention to is the
whole emphasis on sex sin as if this was all that mattered. It will not do
to excuse any sin, but let's get things in proportion. We Christians must
grapple with objections, and a constant appeal to Leviticus, which amounts
to highlighting prohibitions of male anal intercourse whilst ignoring
Sabbath-breaking and lobster-eating makes us look like cherry-picking of
sins. We get asked why we aren't protesting against the latter two
abominations - or don't we think they are any more, and what's our
justification for saying they aren't whilst continuing to insist that
homosexual acts still are abominable? Come on - I want to hear the answers
to these things - not to minimalize sex sins, but so we can engage in
reasoned discussions with those who are seriously troubled by our selecting
certain sins as dreadful whilst ignoring others in the same lists. You may
say all you like that wicked, exploitative businessmen are "equally
condemned" - yes, by God, maybe, but not in our churches, where their
generous funding and outward respectability make them welcome and accepted,
in stark contrast to the easier targets of gays who, at the very least, are
not going round wrecking other people's lives by their private actions.
Let's, in other words, get a sense of proportion because the world around
us is absolutely baffled by this obsession with private sex sin while, by
not speaking out, these same churches condone the actions of those who
wreck others' lives day after day for financial profit.
-------Original Message-------
29 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Neil Bryson,
(Homosexuals should please bear with me as I answer Neil who is not a homosexual) You ask why so much talk about homosexuality and not other sins? It is because of the hardheartedness of homosexuals and the strangely sodomic way they go about their sin and perversion.
Those committing these other sins that are not homosexual sin are not arguing that the Bible did not condemn their sins the way homosexuals do.
They are not promoting laws to force everyone not to point out their sins as homosexuals do.
They are not calling people who point out their sins names like bigots, haters and fornictophobia, pedophilophobia, rapophobia, robbrophobia, injusticophobia, alcoholicophobia, homicidophobia and such senseless names the way homosexuals do.
They are not organising senseless movements for robbers’ right, murderers’ right, paedophiles’ right, alcoholics’ right, rapists’ right as the homosexuals do.
They are not reinterpreting the Bible to mean that sin is no longer sin and so should be counted holiness by the Church as homosexuals do.
They are not postulating the pseudo-science that they are created alcoholics, fornicators, murderers, paedophiles, rapists and robbers and so should be respected and loved such that they could all go on practicing their atrocities without any attempt to transform but this is the strangely incomprehensible thing that homosexual do.
Homosexuals must not complicate their homosexual sinfulness with mental disorientation, impenitence and stiffneckedness and what could be also called "heterophobia". They should learn from other categories of sinners on how to admit guilt, repent and seek transformation.
29 days ago
• Like
Follow Francis
Francis Pole • Sorry - this is absolute rubbish, especially the bit "It is because of the hardheartedness of homosexuals and the strangely sodomic way they go about their sin and perversion."
You may not like the existence of homosexuality, or the 10+% of people who are homosexual, but that's your view...
The shame about a great deal of this discussion is that it focusses on what a couple of people 'do' sexually. Not the quality of relationships of monogomous loving people in a long-term relationship.
Our God is a God of love and, believe me, I know of several homosexual couples, both men and women, whose qualitity of their loving relationships would put many heterosexual marriages to shame. To my mind the ;gay' ones are really living out Jesus' injunction to love one another.
29 days ago
• Like
2
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Neil Bryson,
On your reference to the way the Church uses the Old Testament. First this thread started with Romans Chapter One, not Leviticus.
Next the Church's use of the Old Testament follows some principles from the beginning. I'm sre you are aware of this but prefer to play it down to accuse the Church the way you want.
Have you not heard anything like this: that biblical MORAL laws are still mandatory on the Christian believer while the principles of CIVIL laws are exemplary for jurisprudence, but the CEREMONIAL or RITUAL laws are already fulfilled in Christ for all who believe in Him and now worship God spiritually and morally but no longer ritually?
29 days ago
• Like
Follow Neil
Neil Bryson • Oh, I've heard this many times, and I'd like to know this: where is the NT
Scripture that tells us which OT laws we can safely ignore now?
-------Original Message-------
29 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Francis,
In Matt 5:46-47, Jesus acknowledged that sinners, fornicators and the like could love themselves so well in their own way but that has nothing to do with their relationship with God. Loving God means being willing to lay aside whatever has the appearance of sin whether inborn or otherwise and live in HOLINESS and godly love not perverse love.
Love that is not in truth and not according to the Truth may look acceptable to you and me but the Christian Faith and Gospel requires much more than that.
The thrumping of Love that resists God's Word as something superior to evry other thing is New Age pagan religion. The percentage of anybody is not the isseue God wants even the smallest minority to be saved and to repent to love and obey God
29 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Neil Bryson,
I've heard this your kind of pretended denial response many times.
Many portions of the NT especially Galatians and Hebrews did much of that.
29 days ago
• Like
Follow Neil
Neil Bryson • So you're saying that things counted as abominations in the OT are no
longer even the most minor of sins in the New. That is a very big change
indeed, but you haven't given a definitive statement, just some airy
directions to find out for myself what you categorically stated. Sorry,
but it's not very helpful.
-------Original Message-------
29 days ago
• Like
Follow Bill
Bill Watson • Thanks for this; I totally concur. En passant, many, however, say that many gays aren't interested in committed relationshiops and only want to engage in casual, non-committal sexual acts. While this is very true, the same can easily be said of heterosexuals as well
29 days ago
• Like
Follow Bill
Bill Watson • Thank you. This truth MUST be remembered in this discussion,,,
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:26:27 +0000
29 days ago
• Like
Follow Fr. Don
Fr. Don Perschall • Neil Bryson wrote and I quote: "Oh, I've heard this many times, and I'd like to know this: where is the NT Scripture that tells us which OT laws we can safely ignore now?"
"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well." Act 15:29-30
It was the decision of the Council of Jerusalem, the Church's 1st General Council - and btw, the Greek word used here for "sexual immorality" is used for the sins of adultery, fornication, homosexuality, sex with animals and incest in the New Testament. And do notice that the decision was inspired by the Holy Spirit - and not of human origin.
So Neil, your 'shell fish' argument just doesn't hold water unless you are a Jew attempting to live under the Old Covenant.
Oh, and Mr. Pole - I have known a number of folks in multiple partner/open relationships and even one that between a pair of siblings but that doesn't make it acceptable for Christians . We can not excuse sin just because someone does it well and gets along with their neighbors in the process.
29 days ago
• Unlike
3
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Since the conversation is recycling itself on the same issues I will probably not post nearly as much, as this has taken way too much time away from other things. But I wish all involved God's grace. We all live under the mercy of God no matter what our opinion is or our behavior is. This however, does not give us a right to rewrite the teachings of the church, but we would do well to remember mercy. The most difficult thing I find in discussing the topic is that the traditional position of the church is painful for many gay people. I understand this pain, and it pains me when people are in pain. But walked through my own pain and having done a considerable about of counseling I also know that we often have to pass through pain to find life. I have learned that we cannot bend truth to our pain. Our pain distorts reality. Rather, in embracing the commands of God and our pain we break through to a greater grace. We die to the things that cause pain and are transformed. I would rather break under the commands of God and fall at his feet a hopeless sinner in need of mercy and redemption than break the commands of God in order to preserve my own life. In dying I am raised to life again, more whole than before.
29 days ago
• Like
2
Follow Olufemi Ejiro
Olufemi Ejiro Igbamerun • Homosexuality is a BIG distraction from the devil in today's Church.
29 days ago
• Like
2
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Matthew,
That was one of the greatest biblical truths and lessons from this discussion.
Hope everyone takes note of it.
God bless you.
29 days ago
• Like
Follow Neil
Neil Bryson • Thanks, Fr Matthew, for your insight: that is the very point I'm trying to
make. What we should be doing is proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord, and His
open invitation to salvation through faith in His precious blood. Right
behaviour follows, not from strident condemnation and threats of
everlasting burning, but from the love that flows from His sacred heart.
The Holy Spirit then starts to live Christ's life through us, and we change
so that, instead of trying slavish obedience to the law, we avoid sin and
embrace virtue because our hearts are changed to be like His heart. That
is what the NT means by the fruit of the Spirit and grace instead of law:
it is His doing, and by His grace we embrace the change He works within us.
That change must come from God the Holy Spirit, or we'll be acting solely
from the flesh and fall back into its works (see Galatians) instead of
producing the harvest of the Spirit (see same Epistle).
29 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Chief Apostle John
Chief Apostle John Mix • I have watched as the conversation about this subject has became more a discussion than a argument!! I would like to say this everything that has been said in scripture is FACT!! Not opinion FACT!! If you cannot except the Bible as it is I will pray for your deliverance. The word of God cannot come back void!!! END OF CONVERSATION SIN IS A SIN AND YOU CANNOT EMBRACE IT!!! I would not want to be there when you are judged by our Lord and Savor Jesus Christ and he asked you why did you embrace this even though they love me and have asked me as there Lord!! They did not repent because you told them it will be all right!!! Then Jesus is going to show you in the Word why you are going with them into the lake of Fire!!! Please you can love them, But you must tell them the truth!!! And console them to repentance and have them sin no more!!! This goes for any sinner not just Gays any sin. Jesus told the prostitute your sins are forgiven, and then he said GO AND SIN NO MORE!!!! He did not say I love you and by my mercy you will have eternal life. If that is true then the word of God is void!! And I know you know that is not true. We love them but we know his Word is forever!!!!
God Bless You!!!
Shabot!! Shalom!!!
Chief Apostolic Apostle Archbishop Dr. John Mix
601-262-5292
www.peciccc.org
28 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Neil Bryson,
I'm not sure your argument is right. I hope I have not misunderstood you.
The Scripture clearly tells us what the Fruit of the Spirit is or is not, and what the works of the flesh is or is not. This is the MORAL Law. We don't work it out subjectively in the manner you seem to postulate.
The Galatians you cited is saying that the RITUAL Laws of the Old Testament (like circumcision, clean/unclean foods and Sabbaths) are not necessary for justification/Salvation in Christ. These are already fulfilled in Christ and are to be appropriated by Faith in Christ. Yet Galatians insists that the MORAL Commandments of the Old Testament (about what is carnal works/lusts and what is Spiritual Fruit) are very necessary for Spiritual Walk in a justified believer. The point in Galatians is contrary to the modern culture of self-discovery or postmodern philosophy of let me alone to find my way eg:
Galatians 5:16-24
(16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
(17) For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that you cannot do the things that you would.
(18) But if you be led of the Spirit, you are not under the law.
(19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, impurity, licentiousness,
(20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strife, jealousy, wrath, selfishness, divisions, heresies,
(21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of which I tell you beforehand, as I have also told you in time past, that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
(22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
(23) Meekness, self-control: against such there is no law.
(24) And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
The New Testament is about OBEYING Christ because we LOVE Him and TRUST Him. Reminding ourselves about God's moral requirement is not putting a burden on anybody, nor does it do any harm to spiritual walk. Pandering to New Age "let me be" rebellious spirit is not exactly the same as the Fruit of the Holy Spirit. This is clearly taught by Christ and the Apostles consistently.
John 14:21
(21) He that has my commandments, and keeps them, he it is that loves me: and he that loves me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
John 15:10
(10) If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
1John 5:1-3
(1) Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and everyone that loves him that begat loves him also that is begotten of him.
(2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
(3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not burdensome.
28 days ago
• Like
Follow Bill
Bill Watson • I am so glad that you said, although I know that it was a 'typo', 'except the Bible for what it is...' WE all know how the Holy Bible came to be, of course we do. It was inspired, but it was written by human beings. It ought to be taken very seriously, of course! However, one must not be selective. Moreover, as one of my mentors once said, 'A text out of context is just a pretext..' That's a very interesting thought and one that ought to be considered in this 'discussion'.
28 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Bill Watson,
Not really sure I understood your comment in its entirety but this statement you referred to is very beautiful, important and clear:
'A text out of context is just a pretext..'
28 days ago
• Like
Follow Neil
Neil Bryson • Ifechukwu misunderstands me. I am passionate about Jesus. He came to free us from trying to be saved by our own efforts and now we are saved by grace. It is not by concentrating on sin that we grow more like Him, but by opening ourselves up to the Holy Spirit, "of the soul the sweetest Guest", who lives out - with out cooperation - the life of Christ. If we try to work it all ourselves, it always fails - that is the story of the OT and trying to keep the law. If we hand over our lives to Christ and abandon ourselves to the Holy Spirit, we will be changed from glory to glory. It is His work from start to finish, the work of the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the Author and Finisher of our faith. We simply cannot do it in our own strength - the works of the flesh listed in Galatians (and quoted above by Ifechukwu) show what a failure that approach is.
What I'm concerned about in this discussion is the heavy condemnation of a particular sin rather than the encouragement to throw ourselves on God's mercy, trust in the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ for our salvation and, through prayer and faith, watching to see the patient work of the Holy Spirit as He brings about the life of Christ in our lives. We then don't want to sin.
We should be preaching Jesus Christ, not keeping the law. Of course the law is good - Paul is clear on that in Romans - but it also doesn't bring about the change of heart that only happens by the direct salvific action of the Holy Trinity in us. We will then find ourselves keeping the law because we want to - His will is working in us.
28 days ago
• Like
Follow Wendy
Wendy Dackson • Neil said, "We should be preaching Jesus Christ, not keeping the law." Actually, we should be keeping the law *for ourselves*--not condemning (and ridiculing) those who do not keep a particular segment of the law which we happen to keep.
I've been watching more than commenting, and am slightly bemused/amused by comments such as this: "the hardheartedness of homosexuals and the strangely sodomic way they go about their sin and perversion."
That seems to be more 'technical' knowledge of homosexuality than most people who aren't homosexual would admit to having, or at minimum, an odd fascination with what one is meant to avoid not only doing, but knowing about. The fascination itself is a bit of a 'sin and perversion', I would think. If, in fact, 'sodomic' is even a word in the English language (a quick look on www.dictionary.com yielded no results for it).
27 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Neil Bryson,
You still miss the point. The issue here is not so much about HOW one is justified nor is this about condemnation of WHO is a sinner but desription of WHAT is sin. This is a discussion on WHAT is the Biblical Truth about homosexuality. WHAT is the Truth of the Gospel about sin or sanctity. That is not "condemnation" of who is wrong as you seem to hap about, but simple "conprehension" of what is right, to KNOW the Truth that SETS FREE.
Failure to clearly understand and agree with the Scriptures on what is evil or rightous can never lead to living the life of Christ by whatever method or approach (working it all by ourselves or not working at all by ourselves). The Holy Spirit and Faith do not work without acceptance of the Truth about evil and godliness.Truth is not condemnation.
It is also important to realise that any discussion or preaching of the Scripture also includes the proclamtion and establishing of the authoritative stand and standards of God. The Church cannot blush or ever bulge at modern tantrums about whether they hate being told about staandards outside their orientations or dislike making known God's opinion about human choices as revealed in the Scriptures.
You are fully aware that Jesus preached God's love, mercy, woes and condemnation while the Apostles preached God's love, mercy, anathemas and damnations. Even the prophets preached God's love, mercy, judgment, and wrath. If your New Age culture abhors any of these things, that can never deter Biblical Christianity nor should we revise our Biblical Faith to syncretise with heathenism.
27 days ago
• Like
Follow Neil
Neil Bryson • To clarify what that sentence means grammatically (and how I intended it), I'll have to split it into two parts:
We should be preaching Jesus Christ.
We should not be preaching keeping the law.
This does not mean that we should not encourage people to obey God! What I'm trying to urge on people is the prime task of preaching Jesus Christ rather than banging on about the law all the time. When we have a dynamic encounter with Jesus Christ, and maintain our relationship with Him, we find that, out of the love relationship we enjoy with Him, we want to do things that please Him. The law then becomes not a matter of obligation, but of delight to do those things that please the Beloved. That will also entail finding out what pleases Him.
This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,
(I Jn 5:3 NIV84).
The only way they won't be burdensome is if we are first in love with Him. The indwelling Holy Spirit will then motivate us and change our attitudes so that we want to obey His commands - because we want those same things as He does.
For God is working in you, giving you the desire and the power to do what pleases Him.
(Php 2:13 NLT)
So it's a matter of the order of things: if we start from the Law, we'll fail. If we start from a relationship with Christ, desire to obey Him will follow. It is only then that we will stay away from sexual sin - but we cannot start from there, because we don't have the power to do so from our own resources.
Almighty God,
who seest that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves:
keep us both outwardly in our bodies,
and inwardly in our souls;
that we may be defended from all adversities
which may happen to the body,
and from all evil thoughts which may assault and hurt the soul;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
27 days ago
• Like
2
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • This prayer says it all.
We must identify, repent of and abhor evil. That is not condemnation but clarification.
27 days ago
• Like
Follow Neil
Neil Bryson • It is an acknowledgment that in and of ourselves we are powerless to do what pleases God. We can only do so through Jesus Christ our Lord, who gives us the desire and the power to do what pleases Him. We have to change inside - only He can do this. If we were all preoccupied with this and preaching this, the rest would follow. As it is, the world sees us as obsessed with sex and condemning gays: this is deeply unattractive to non-Christians who think we're all bigots. All sin is wrong, of course it is, but we should be preaching Jesus Christ - that He is the answer to everything - and in those who respond, sin will be recognized for what it is and the Holy Spirit will give us the ability to overcome sin in our own lives. But first they must come to Christ, submit everything to Him, and He will sort the rest out.
27 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Do't get worried about preaching what is truly God's Word.
Calling you bigots (when they are really the bigots) is not yet as grave as crucifixion and martyrdom. The world would do anything to shut you up. If they dictate the tune of your message, then you are not sent by God but sent by them.
If you finish running from being called bigot, you'll run from being accused of being judgmental, then you'll run for being archaic, then you run from being biblical rather than philosophical, then... That is a cowardly and defeatist way of doing anything under the sun. Hear the Apostles who knew the certainty of their message and the authority of the One Who sent them speak:.
Acts 4:18-20
(18) And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
(19) But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge you.
(20) For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
1Corinthians 1:18-25
(18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God.
(19) For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
(20) Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
(21) For since in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
(22) For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
(23) But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
(24) But unto them who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
(25) Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
27 days ago
• Like
Follow Neil
Neil Bryson • Of course we mustn't dilute the gospel. All I'm saying is that it appears to the world around (certainly in the UK) that the Church of England's only concern is homosexuality and women bishops. It isn't, of course, our only concern, but that's all that seems to be registering in people's minds at present, not the marvellous offer of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. If the unreached only see us as bigots, they will remain unreached. That is why I'm advocating a positive message of that attractive offer of redemption. Jesus said, "When I am lifted up, I will draw all people to Me." He didn't say, "When you preach damnation for not keeping the Law, then people will run to you." We should be carrying out the Great Commission, which is to preach the gospel to all nations: the gospel is good news, not threats of damnation. What is good news for many is this: God accepts us as we are right now; if we come to Him, then He'll then change us into what He intended us to be all along.
27 days ago
• Like
2
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Amen Niel. That is the message we must bring to the world. The issue of truth and fidelity to the catholic faith is what we need to hold up to the church where it errs.
26 days ago
• Like
2
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Neil,
Truly the Anglican Church in most parts had lost the message for a long time till homosexuality and women ordination issues jarred them out of slumber.
The Gospel message is invitation to come to Jesus and receive salvation from sin and damnation. Beclouding what the Gospel saves from renders the Gospel powerless and purposeless. We have no alternative counter-culture to offer the world that is why the Church has become beggarly without a message. The world now gives us ultimatum about what to preach otherwise they would call us bad names and not listen! And we succumb to such cheap blackmail!! What a shame.
Your suggestion sounded beautiful and soothing. But this your "come as you are" Gospel, does it mean "come without repentance from whatever one's orientations and worldviews" or does it mean "come however impossible anyone may think it would take to be forgiven and be saved from damnation" ? .
How does this your beautiful suggested Gospe agree with (or more powerful than) these by Christ and His Apostle? We know they clearly pointed out that the Gospel salvation is "from sin and condemnation" because of God's love and mercy, not because people don't like anyone daring to mention repentance from sin and damnation for sin?
Luke 13:2-5
(2) And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose you that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things?
(3) I tell you, Nay: but, except you repent, you shall all likewise perish.
(4) Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them, think you that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
(5) I tell you, Nay: but, except you repent, you shall all likewise perish.
John 3:16-18
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
(18) He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Act 17:30-31
(30) And the times of this ignorance God overlooked; but now commands all men everywhere to repent:
(31) Because he has appointed a day, in which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he has ordained; and of this he has given assurance unto all men, in that he has raised him from the dead.
26 days ago
• Like
Follow Neil
Neil Bryson • Come as you are does not mean stay as you are.
26 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Chief Apostle John
Chief Apostle John Mix • Pastor Neal:
The true Gospel is great news!!! Only IF YOU REPENT FROM YOUR OLD WAYS IF NOT YOU WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE IN HELL!!! That is the true gospel what is the first thing you say to Jesus Christ in the sinners prayer!! I AM A SINNER, Foregive me of my sins that is repentence!! You say foregive me of my sins. But I am still going to continue to sin in front of you!!!! That is crap!! That is like telling Jesus Christ I'll take one of these and one of these OH NO I cant give that up!! I want salvation but I also want my lifestyle Don't work that way!! It says you must have conviction in your heart!!! That means no more I love you Jesus Christ I give up that life for you!! From this day fourth I am your good and faithfull servant forever more!!! Great Love to you Pastor you can't only have one way it is all or nothing!!! God Bless You!!!
Shabot!! Shalom!!
Chief Apostolic Apostle Archbishop Dr. John Mix
601-262-5292
www.peciccc.org
26 days ago
• Like
Follow Neil
Neil Bryson • Do you think I preach a message of cheap grace? I am very clear that repentance is an essential part of conversion. But falling in love with Jesus Christ brings with it a desire to please Him and no longer to live a sinful lifestyle. However, first we must be drawn to Him, attracted to Him, and then everything else follows.
26 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Neil, I’m with you on that.
My point is that by the Christ’s mandate to the Church, we cannot and will never allow the eternally saving Gospel to be tinkered or be blackmailed by a heathen generation that has progressively grown tyrannical with their Truth-hatred (BIBLEPHOBIA), God-hatred (THEOSTUGEIA and THEOPHOBIA), and all other forms of irreligious bigotry.
The Gospel message is a non-negotiable mandate from Christ and is carried out on eternally powerful and verifiable terms such as:
Mark 6:10-13
(10) And he said unto them, In whatever place you enter into a house, there abide till you depart from that place.
(11) And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when you depart from there, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.
(12) And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
(13) And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.
Luke 10:16-20
(16) He that hears you hears me; and he that despises you despises me; and he that despises me despises him that sent me.
(17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject unto us through your name.
(18) And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
(19) Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
(20) Nevertheless in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.
26 days ago
• Like
Follow James
James Blackmore • Rubbish
21 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Neil
Neil Bryson • And I don't suppose James is commenting on the Scriptures themselves!
21 days ago
• Like
2
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • James is exhibitting his deep Truth-hatred (BIBLEPHOBIA) and God-hatred (THEOSTUGEIA and THEOPHOBIA), It's so apparent.
21 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Let me wonder aloud.
When you say, "You have diabetes, take this medication."
it is called skill, diagnosis or kindness.
When you say, "You are poor, take this money or job."
It is called charity or philanthropy.
When you say, "You have sinned or you are a sinner, repent and receive God's remission and salvation through Christ."
Instead of calling it Gospel, love and compassion (God News), some people prefer to call it judging, bigotry, etc.
Why is this compassionate show of love and offer of divine mercy derided and jettisoned by a world in need of salvation?
19 days ago
• Like
2
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Beautifully stated, Ifechukwu.
19 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Fr. Don
Fr. Don Perschall • Ifechukwu - this is basic Christianity 101 - why this escapes those who wish to make excuses for sin is beyond me!
19 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Or is it because:
We accept that poverty is not good for us so we appreciate prosperity;
We accept that sickness is not good for us so we appreciate health;
But we are not aware that sin is not good for us, so we don't appreciate salvation toward purity?
Just wondering.
19 days ago
• Like
Follow Rev. M.P.
Rev. M.P. Philips • I am not to say that sexual relation like homo which the world is now caught up with is something new but the media hype has made it so popular and we feel the pros and cons of it. In one the argument there is a comment then why not accept thieves, fornication, murders, and so on. Then some would say these relations are affecting human relationship negatively, unlike sexual relationship, but sexual relationship would affect negatively should it be excessive. There is both good and bad in most accepted matters if not used to relate with in a right manner. Much of the ambiguity would ease if rules are not venerated but accept it according to situations and social urgency. Jesus said man is not made for sabbath but sabbath for man. Then the essentials would be given priority to follow to non essentials .
18 days ago
• Like
Follow Patrick
Patrick White • I agree with one of the previous writers that we seem obsessed with sex. We've lost our focus as we do not read the bible as God's written word. Jesus told us to go and teach all nations. The issue of homosexuality has been settled by thousands of years of the same teaching. It is wrong. The Bible says so. As difficult as that may be for a lot of people, we either accept the Bible as the word of God, or we are not following His word.
18 days ago
• Like
2
Follow Chris
Chris Dalliston • having followed this rather circular discussion for so long without commenting I hesitate to do so now. But please be clear what is being said: The Bible is obviously NOT God's written word. The church prayerfully determined that certain writings were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and hence should be considered Scripture. That's why so much of this discussion is so difficult because we differ about the character of scripture and its place within the life of faith. Some see it as completely authoritative in itself - others see it as part of a threefold frame of reference including tradition and reason that together shape our theology. That indeed is the Anglican position. Patrick of course does cite tradition too. However a similar approach could be taken to the place of women in the church to perpetuate and justify two thousand years of subjugation. That doesn't mean that its right.
18 days ago
• Like
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Good Dean Dalliston, you are entirely right. This is the heart of the discussion. The issue is authority, not homosexuality per se. I also think we have to move beyond 16th and 17th century Anglicanism if we are going to find a solution. Anglicanism has to reach back to the patristic roots of the Church. The Church, having determined which scriptures would be considered authoritative, submitted herself to those authoritative scriptures as divinely inspired. The mistake is to see the act of establishing the canon as if the Church has authority over the meaning of the scriptures. I think this is a modern imposition on the events. IN any event what comes into focus is this question, "which is the authoritative community from which to read the scriptures, the modern or the patristic?" There is far more to cause to bind oneself to the patristic community and understanding of scripture on issues of doctrine and morality than to adopt the position of modernists who have divorced themselves from the mind of the early Church.
18 days ago
• Like
1
Follow bertram
bertram ogoke • As long as we have accepted the scriptures to be inspired of God, then it is the word of God related to us by inspired men of God. Homosexuality is not biblical and those practicing it should be pitied and asked to repent.
Archdeacon Bertram U. Ogoke
18 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Leslie
Leslie Ferguson • I'll pose a non-biblical question, who was correct Philolaus or Copernicus? The former hypothesized in the 4th and 5th century BCE that the universe revolved around the earth; the latter hypothesized in the 15th and 16th century CE that the sun was the center of the universe. Of course, from 4 or 6 centuries later we state that Copernicus was correct because we have proof. Does that mean that Philolaus was any less correct for his era and with the limitations posed by human knowledge before the 15th century?
As a scientifically trained theologian I cannot discount the premises of science - a finding is valid, not in ALL cases but in cases where the variables are within an "acceptable" range. Sometimes, in the sciences, assumptions are made that claim some things are constant yet later discovery actually helps us realize that the item in question is truly variable.
If, in fact, scientists were able to find, without a reasonable doubt, something that moved faster than the speed of light would that make Einstein's theories wrong or simply incomplete? While the finding would rock the scientific world I also think the finding would be viewed through the lens of "given the technology and methods available at the time, and with the conditions that could be measured, Einstein's theory was correct. Now that more information is available the scientific community chooses to adopt a new 'standard'."
While faith cannot be proven scientifically, is it possible to apply scientific thinking and hypothesis generation and acceptance or denial when looking at faith?
I believe it was Rowan Williams who spoke about the discontinuity between history and the bible with regard to the story presented in Daniel. He explained that there is evidence that the series of events in Daniel did not match the recorded, non-biblical history. Does that mean that Daniel is false or is there something in the story of Daniel that relays a message that God wants us to hear.
18 days ago
• Like
Follow Chief Apostle John
Chief Apostle John Mix • Amen Archdeacon Ogoke:
Amen!!! Amen!!! and Amen!!!
Chief Apostolic Apostle Archbishop Dr. John Mix
www.peciccc.org
601-262-5292
18 days ago
• Like
Follow James
James Blackmore • More hogwash
18 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • James Blackmore,
You sounds so infidel, hateful and bigoted.
Did I read you right?
18 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Leslie and Dalliston,
I think you both miss the point.
The Scripture is not like a theory or postulation. It is the standard measure or canon of the Christian Faith and Witness. Its equivalents in science are the old Units of measure: the ounce, the inch, the gallon, the minute.Tampering with the value of any of these is fraud or error.
Modern Reason and Experience are like the new Units of measure: the gram, the meter, the litre, etc. When using Reason and Tradition, you must make sure you use accurate conversion ratios to arrive at the same measure as the Scripture. Just as we do in every true science (and even in currency conversion).
18 days ago
• Like
Follow Leslie
Leslie Ferguson • Ifechukwu - Please help me understand your frame of reference. While you may believe I am be missing the point but I asked some questions to help me understand your reasoning and the discussion's response to a couple fundamental and accepted means for proof and gaining knowledge.
Could someone please answer the questions posed?
Definition of term: correct can be used for right in the statement below.
First: if it is generally accepted that the events portrayed in the Book of Daniel are different than most historians recount them does that mean that (1) the Book of Daniel is "right" and history is "wrong"? (2) The book of Daniel is "wrong" and history is "right"? (3) Neither is "right"? (4) Both are "right"? Or (5) There are aspects of both that are "right"?
What is your definition of accurate conversion of Scripture? King James English? Biblical Hebrew? Aramaic? Septuagent? Biblical Greek? Contemporary Latin?
How do you account for those phrases that have been marked as "corrected" by "The Committee" in contemporary translations of the Bible (ESV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, etc.)? What does that mean to you - were the original translators wrong and the new ones correct?
18 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Leslie,
You are well aware that questions can never end on any matter even the fact or falsehood about who you really are as Leslie.
What is the point of your problem?
Is it the authority of the Scripture or the authority of historians and translators?
is it the accuracy of the Scriptures or the accuracy of reason and experience?
18 days ago
• Like
Follow Leslie
Leslie Ferguson • Ifechukwu,
My problem is you choose to not answer a simple question that I ask of you about how you arrive at your answers to all questions under the sun.
My response to your question since you ask so clearly:
The Authority of Scripture is the inspired Word of God as recorded by humans.
I believe that Scripture accurately describe the relationship between Israel and the followers of Christ and their understanding of God in their lives and their understanding of Jesus come to restore all humanity to relationship with God - not because God needs the relationship but that God wants the relationship with us. God will be wholly God with or without our relationship with God.
Now, would you please honor my question with a straightforward answer?
18 days ago
• Like
Follow bertram
bertram ogoke • My Brother thanks for agreeing with me.Lets keep praying for the Spirit and
power of God to touch and arrest those practicing homosexuality.
Bertram
18 days ago
• Like
1
Follow James
James Blackmore • Glad you still love me
18 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • The best we should do as Christians is to hold the Scriptures as the infallible prophetic Word, and the authentic measure (STANDARD WEIGHT or METER-RULE) of faith, truth, reason, tradition and experience so that our dark hearts will be illuminated to daylight (2Pet 1:19). When our reason, tradition and experience contradict the Scriptures (or do not fit into the measures of the Scripture) then we err in faith and truth. This is the problem with justifying homosexuality and other sinful vices whether legalised or not.
All the writings of the Scripture are God-breathed (INSPIRED) to have the power to make people wise toward the saving faith in Christ (2Tim 3:15) and can equip and empower every God-dedicated person toward every good work (2Tim 3:17). This is why every Scripture is always profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and righteous training (2Tim 3:16).
The writers of the Scriptures are best placed and most authentic messengers of the Divine Message (Word or Logos) while the words and phraseology of the Scriptures are the most accurate means of communicating the Divine Message.
16 days ago
• Like
Follow Leslie
Leslie Ferguson • Ifechukwu - I thank you for your succinct commentary on the authority of scripture. I will use your comments to enter prayer for wisdom to continue the debate in a helpful and reasoned manner.
In faith,
Les
15 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Thanks Leslie, May God help us as we seek to be truer and truer to His Word.
15 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • IN ABOUT 150AD AUTOLYCUS MOCKED AND CHALLENGED THEOPHYLUS OF ANTIOCH TO SHOW HIM THE CHRISTIAN GOD.
THIS WAS THEOPHYLUS’ RESPONSE:
Therefore, do not be sceptical, but believe; for I myself also used to disbelieve that this would take place, but now, having taken these things into consideration, I believe. At the same time, I met with the sacred Scriptures of the holy prophets, who also by the Spirit of God foretold the things that have already happened, just as they came to pass, and the things now occurring as they are now happening, and things future in the order in which they shall be accomplished.
Admitting, therefore, the proof which events happening as predicted afford, I do not disbelieve, but I believe, obedient to God, whom, if you please, do you also submit to, believing Him, lest if now you continue unbelieving, you be convinced hereafter, when you are tormented with eternal punishments; which punishments, when they had been foretold by the prophets, the later-born poets and philosophers stole from the holy Scriptures, to make their doctrines worthy of credit.
Yet these also have spoken beforehand of the punishments that are to light upon the profane and unbelieving, in order that none be left without a witness, or be able to say, “We have not heard, neither have we known.” But do you also, if you please, give reverential attention to the prophetic Scriptures, and they will make your way plainer for escaping the eternal punishments, and obtaining the eternal prizes of God.
For He who gave the mouth for speech, and formed the ear to hear, and made the eye to see, will examine all things, and will judge righteous judgment, rendering merited awards to each. To those who by patient continuance in well-doing (Rom_2:7) seek immortality, He will give life everlasting, joy, peace, rest, and abundance of good things, which neither hath eye seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive. (1Co_2:9) But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, (Rom_2:8, Rom_2:9) and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men. Since you said, “Show me thy God,” this is my God, and I counsel you to fear Him and to trust Him.
(Excerpt from Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 2)
13 days ago
• Like
Follow Chief Apostle John
Chief Apostle John Mix • Amen Pastor Ibeme!!! well done Brother well done!!!
keep up the great work!!!
Shabot!! Shalom!!!
Chief Apostolic Apostle Archbishop Dr. John Mix
www.peciccc.org
601-262-5292
13 days ago
• Like
Follow Neil
Neil Bryson • I thought back to earlier part of the discussion when I asked about the 613 OT laws and what justification there was for singling out this one in the discussion while not condemning, say, lobster-eaters. This was in the light of assertions that, as Jesus came to fulfil the law, not abolish it, we had to keep it.
When I pushed further, someone answered that we didn't have to keep the dietary laws any more; I assume this is because of Mark 7:19. Yet later, when I pushed again on this, someone forcefully quoted Acts 15:28f "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these few requirements: You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well." That was the Council of Jerusalem. Of course, it was the last prohibition that was leaped on - with some triumph, I thought - as a justification that homosexual practices are still prohibited for Christians (except it doesn't say that, of course).
What about the other three: they are dietary requirements. Are we not allowed to eat black pudding, then? Must we only buy meat from a kosher butcher to make sure it was bled, hasn't been offered to idols, or strangled? These three are Jewish Torah requirements, so why were they imposed by the Council of Jerusalem and why do we ignore them today: what is our justification for picking and choosing like this?
Can someone help out here?
And before the so-called Chief Apostle (which we don't have in the Anglican Communion, so what exactly is he really?) starts pontificating, I am not advocating homosexual practices for Christians, but nor do I think we have to keep kosher or be circumcised, which would place us under the Law - Torah - rather than grace (Gal 5:3).
9 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Neil Bryson,
I'm not sure I get your point but this discussion began on the premise that homosexuality was a normal practice among the ancient Gentiles or Heathens both in the time of the Old Testament (Sodom, Gomorah, etc) and the New Testament (Corinth, Rome, etc). So homosexuality is not modern but pagan. It is not advancement but depravity, it is not freedom but rebellion, it is not sexual orientation but perversion, it is not sexuality but immorality, it is not gender but anomally. It therefore demands corrective not approval, it requires therapy because it is unnatural.
Again it was pointed out ab initio that the Church's preaching and influence was what beat homosexuality out of vogue. The Epistle to the Romans which was written after Acts 15:28f and Mark 7:19 did not just condemn homosexuality but gave detailed explanation of its origin, nature and consequences as a immoral and unnatural evil. These were not simply based on the laws and passages you keep referring to.
Let me remind you of two earlier posts on this thread.
(1) On your reference to the way the Church uses the Old Testament. First this thread started with Romans Chapter One, not Leviticus.
Next the Church's use of the Old Testament follows some principles from the beginning. I'm sre you are aware of this but prefer to play it down to accuse the Church the way you want.
Have you not heard anything like this: that biblical MORAL laws are still mandatory on the Christian believer while the principles of CIVIL laws are exemplary for jurisprudence, but the CEREMONIAL or RITUAL laws are already fulfilled in Christ for all who believe in Him and now worship God spiritually and no longer ritually?
and
(2) See the next post
8 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • and
(2) HOMOSEXUALITY & the likes:
Except among the Jews, homosexuality (like fornucation, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; envy, murder, deceit, malignity, etc) was not frowned at by many pagan cultures of the ancient world.
Romans 1:28-32
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not proper;
(29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
(30) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
(31) Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
(32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Todays world is only reviving its depraved, pagan, heathenish cultures. It was the Church that pointed out the evil, vileness and folly of homosexuality and other sinful cultural practices to the pagan societies of the nations through the light of the Gospel. This eventually led to such evils becoming abhored, repented from or even criminalised.
The Scriptures talk unambiguously about the divine origin and certainty of Scriptural revelation as against the reprobate and futile (even if intellectual) philosophies (or foolosophies?) of the heathens that produced, propagated and pursued idolatrous religions, homosexual and other vile sexual and inordinate passions, disregard for God and His judgment, and zealous godlessness. A futile mindedness that wants to change even God but would refuse to change any of its inclinations and orientations.
Romans 1:21-28
(21) Because, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
(22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
(23) And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
(24) Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
(25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
(27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting.
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not proper;
Because the pagans want unbiblical things to be acceptable, so they have to propagate a foundational ideology of no biblical authority and no absolutes. That is deluded denial of reality and can never be true even if the whole world held to it, as they once did before Christ and His Apostle began to put things right. This current move will (take it or leave it) certainly crumble entirely under God’s wrath when the cup is full.
Romans 1:18
(18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
8 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Without being too simplistic on GRACE and LAW:
LAW is being saved through sanctification
GRACE is being saved unto sanctification
GRACE does not mean we continue in SIN (MORAL evil rather than RITUAL non-compliance and CULTURAL non-conformity) while we have GRACE.
GRACE means that we only keep from sin if we are saved by GRACE for when we are saved we receive the GRACE that empowers us to keep from sin.
GRACE means that however strong the homosexual urge may be through the enabling and deliverance power of GRACE, such urges can be overcome.
8 days ago
• Like
Follow Matthew
Matthew Mirabile, Rev. • Niel I think I understand what you are asking. We seem to cite the Old Testament selectively and even where the New Testament might explain it at the council of Jerusalem we also treat that selectively. Now you are on to the very nuanced problem of biblical interpretation. There have been, from time to time, Councils of the church that have ruled on various issues since the Council of Jerusalem (Councils were the means by which the early church settled major questions, they were patterned after this first one). Councils err. While most of the things typically determined by councils are upheld as something where "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" there are certain decisions that are more clearly just cultural artifacts of their time and context. This is one of the Reasons why the Vincentian Canon has been employed at some of the most difficult times (the Council of Constance and Vatican II for example). IN the end we have to look at a few ways of making authoritative decisions in the church: (1) The scriptures - where that needs clarification we need (2) Councils - whose decisions can be tested against (3) Continuity with "what has been believed always, everywhere and by all" - which should find life among (4) The people of God. The Vox Populi being the final test, because if the practice doesn't survive there it may be suspect.
If one were to be open minded and even entertain the possibility that homosexuality would no longer be considered a sin it really could not be determined by any one Christian group. Only by a council. The Episcopal Church has haughtily pushed their opinion upon the rest of the Church. They have not submitted to any part of the process outlined above (having a general convention does not constitute a Church Council). The position (admitting homosexuality) passes none of these tests. Only through redefining plain scriptures do they deal with (1), they ignore all previous councils and would not submit to one now, bypassing (2) at no point does the common witness of the faith give license (3) and the people of the church are not in unity on the issue in the West and our brothers and sisters in the global south reject it.
8 days ago
• Like
2
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Matthew, clear as crystal!
8 days ago
• Like
Follow Lee
Lee Walker • Actually, Ezekiel, according to the Bible, God DID NOT rain down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah as a punishment for homosexuality. Get a concordance to the Bible and look up the word "Sodom" and then go to each place in the Bible where Sodom is mentioned. In every place in the Bible that mentions Sodom, the reason given for God destroying the cities is NOT homosexuality or anything about sex at all. The reason the Bible gives is that Sodom and Gomorrah broke the laws of hospitality and treated the poor and widowed and orphaned shamefully. I'm not saying that God approved of the sexual behavior in Sodom and Gomorrah. I'm just saying that sexual immorality is what people today say is the reason. It is not the reason given in the Scriptures.
8 days ago
• Like
Follow Randell Franklyn
Randell Franklyn Busby • If homosexuality was the motivation for God's wrath, why did Lot send out his daughters to the ravenous crowd of people assembled outside his door? This was not a sin of sexual orientation, this was a sin of violence and subjugation. The kind of violence and subjugation women in Kenya and much of Africa endure even today, Mr. Ibeme. Where is your concern for these victims and the souls of the evil men who perpetrate this evil against God and humanity?
The hazard of biblical literalism is that so much is dependent upon which version one chooses to use. The KJV, which I'm sure most of the folks on this site swear by, fails to mention that there were 5 "cities of the plain" and not just the two the right-wingers love to quote (they were Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim and Bela).
In fact, God destroyed four cities, not two. Why are these not mentioned in your denunciations? One should mention that the most evil city of them all, Zoar, was bypassed entirely by whatever cataclysm God allegedly visited upon the others.
Anyone person claiming to have the whole "truth" is either a charlatan or a fool.
8 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • 1. The mind of the catholic Church has been wrong on more than one occasion (e.g., the excommunication of Nazarene Jewish Christianity, the Great Schism, the Crusades, etc.).
2. In all of the Holy Scriptures there are only about a half-dozen putative references to homosexual behavior.
2. Any application of the Levitical Holiness Code texts outside of the Levitical priesthood is a categorical misapplication of the texts, and the application of these texts to lay people was Jesus' main criticism of the Pharisees.
3. The key O.T. text used against homosexuality, "A man shall not lie with a man as with a woman" has no equivalent prohibition for women, even though such texts usual do (e.g., male nocturnal emissions and female menstruation are similarly unclean. If this text is to be literally applied as a prohibition against male-male sexual relations, the where is the literal equivalent prohibition against female-female sexuality? Either God hates gay sex and is okay with lesbian sex or this text is about something other than homosexuality, per se (e.g. temple prostitution).
4. Jesus says nothing about homosexuality.
5. In the Pauline texts used against homosexuality (and there are only a few), the words translated as referring to homosexual behavior, per se, are actually more specific in meaning, and appear to actually condemn the common practice of man-boy sexual relationships, and similar sexually abusive behavior.
6. Interestingly, Roman Catholic scholars I know say that the RC church's opposition to homosexuality is based primarily on natural law, not Scripture.
I think I'll leave it at that for now...
8 days ago
• Like
Follow bertram
bertram ogoke • Ken, You are sincerely wrong, You got it wrong, I feel you need to have personal encounter with the Lord Jesus and you can therefore know Jesus mind on homosexuality. You cannot know the mind of Jesus when you do not know him. You are talking from outside the fold. Come to Jesus and you will understand him better. Repent and give you life to Jesus. Thanks for provoking me to write. Ven Bertram U. Ogoke
8 days ago
• Like
1
Follow bertram
bertram ogoke • Lee, Please come out plain and say your position. Are you for homosexuality or against it. Homosexuality is sin and should be avoided. No compromise about it. Thanks
Ven. Bertram U. Ogoke
8 days ago
• Like
Follow Bob
Bob O'Brien • Let us look at God's original intent in Genesis. He created man and then He Created woman to be a helpmate for man. He later said that man was to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. Relations that are outside the original intent of God were called sinful in both the Old and New testament. For those of you that are having difficulty defining what sin is the Bible tells us sin is, it is falling short of the glory of God. Therefore, cohabiting between two same sex partners or two opposite sex partners if they are not husband and wife is considered sin by God and not to be done by man. Jesus went further than that when He said that if you look lustfully on another person and wish to lie with them you have committed adultery in your heart. God considers anything other than two opposite sex partners who are in a relationship that is committed to each other to be sin. We can rationalize or try to redefine scripture but when we arrive at the judgement of the lamb His question will be were you true to each other if married or were you chaste if single. I am sure that there are those who will try and fail to explain away their sinful behavior on that day. If you are one who will try that I suggest you take a hard look at repenting of your sin and ask God to grant you forgiveness and newness of life, and that you take the words of Jesus seriously when He said to the woman caught in adultery "neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more."
8 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Lee
Lee Walker • Bertram,I have already answered your question. I have previously stated in this forum that I see nothing in Holy Scripture to forbid same sex relationships. I have also said in this forum that I'm gay. I cannot see how you can support the position that Scripture forbids same sex relationships unless you either hold an heretical and literalist view of the Bible unknown until the mid 19th Century and then, only in the West or unless you apply one standard to the six verses in question and a different standard to all the other verses we ignore today. I have lived under the system of antigay teaching and I have lived as an openly gay man. The former is a life from hell that makes proper relationship with one's self, with others, and with Christ Our God impossible. You told another person in this forum that they need to find a personal relationship with Jesus so that they can know the Mind of Jesus on the matter of homosexuality. It is my personal relationship with the Risen Lord Jesus that has formed my beliefs on this matter. Do you personally know the person you told to find a relationship with Jesus Christ? I ask because I would find it amazing if you had the ability to determine which of us in this forum have a personal relationship with the Lord simply by reading our posts in this forum. I think it's sad when disagreement over one matter in the life of the Christian Community causes one to assume that the person with whom you disagree has no relationship with the Lord. The Holy Apostles Peter and Paul disagreed on fundamental questions early in their ministries, issues which also threatened to rip the Body of CHrist apart, but they never presumed to deny that the other had a relationship with the Lord.
8 days ago
• Like
Ezekiel Wanje • Mathew 19: 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the
Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man
will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two
will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Here Jesus has clearly said that marriage is between a man and a woman. I
wonder if a wife can be a man in the definition of the English language., I
am an African, as someone pointed out, so perhaps I may assume that a wife
is a woman while it could be a man, but in any case, I believe that Jesus's
words mean marriage is between a man and his wife(woman). It also talks of
the man leaving his father and mother. Can the mother be a fellow man too?
8 days ago
1
Follow Sheila
Sheila Hinds • I agree with you! God States you will leave your mothers and fathers house to unite with your husband, not woman to woman or man to man. Its a sin to believe Homosexuality is ok. Its sad to even think many believe, if in their own minds that God would condone such blasphemy! !!!! .
8 days ago
• Unlike
2
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Lee Walker,
That you are gay is by your choice, yet it is a bondage and sin from which you are sure to be delivered from, if you let Christ come in and take over.
But to reject deliverance and wallow in homosexual anomally when delivverance is offered to you in the Gospel is absurd and unthinkable.
8 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Ken Howard,
The issue is not Catholic Church but Scriptures. Your revisionist abberation of the Scriptures you don't like is very interesting. Man-boy homosexuality is your suprising meaning of Romans 1:26-28
(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
(27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting.
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not proper;
if you revisionist don't like the literalist, cant you guys be literary? Has grammar no meaning with homosexuals too?
8 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Let me share this:
St Paul wrote The Epistle to the Romans from the city of Corinth.
CORINTH, the capital city of Achaia was in Paul’s day (AD50s) the globalised commerce nerve centre of the Mediterranean world: a cosmopolitan mega-city of opulence, a proud libertine and wanton (“ALL THINGS ARE LAWFUL” 1Cor 6:12; 10:23) culture with freedom of individual expression for women, slaves and strangers alike irrespective of ethnicity, a sexually perverse and morally debauched idolatry, a city of Aphrodite sports and sophist rhetoric and philosophy.
The world of today is yet to attain the “modernity” and “humanism” of Corinth despite today’s civilisation, technology and globalisation. Except for crime-control (Act 18:14-15), the only cities today that try to approach Corinth in libertinism, indecency and commerce may be Las Vegas and New York.
That the “raw unpackaged” Gospel saved souls by God’s power and was relevant in Corinth is a proof that the same Gospel has the power and relevance to save souls today.
1Corinthians 2:1-6
(1) And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
(2) For I determined not to know anything among you, except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
(3) And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
(4) And my speech and my preaching were not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
(5) That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
(6) But we speak wisdom among them that are mature: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nothing:
1Corinthians 1:18-25
(18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God.
(19) For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
(20) Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
(21) For since in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
(22) For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
(23) But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
(24) But unto them who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
(25) Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
8 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Bertram,
Actually, you have me wrong.
I am a Jewish Christian, born a Jew, committed my life to Jesus Christ almost 40 years ago, started two churches, brought many into the Church, including those of non-Christian upbringing. I believe whole-heatedly the Triune God and the fully human-fully God nature of Jesus Christ. I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God in the same manner as the early Church (not literal but speaking the Truth). I do not speak from outside the fold. As a person of Jewish origins, I think I have a better understanding of the intended meaning of the OT Levitical passages than many. As a student of Hebrew and Greek, I speak with some knowledge of literal and figurative word meanings. As a researcher of the early Church and the Apostle Paul, I have some knowledge of those areas, too. I merely state that the literal Biblical evidence against homosexuality, per se, is weak, Jesus said nothing specifically against it. And, if one wants to be literal, has more literally to say against traditional family than for it ("who are my mother and brothers," "whoever does not hate mother and brother, etc").
8 days ago
• Like
1
Ezekiel Wanje • 2 Timothy 3: 1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.
8 days ago
1
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Ken Howard,
Show how this passage is weak against homosexuality from your research, Jewish, Greek, Truth, non-literal but literary, insider, Apostolic, New Testament, etc views.Get to work and show us. We'll be glad to learn.
Romans 1:26-28
(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
(27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting.
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not proper;
7 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Dear Ifechukwu,
First, allow me to respond to your first comment, in which you suggest that I am a revisionist homosexual.
1. Please re-read my first post. I was not referring to the Roman Catholic Church (large "C" Catholic, meaning the denomination). Rather,I was responding to another person's comment that homosexuality was opposed to the "mind of the catholic Church" (small "c," meaning the universal Church).
2. I was not referring to the Romans text but to I Corinthians 6:9-10, in which the term translated as homosexual is "arsenokoitai" (which can refer to the man-boy relationship of which I spoke) and not "paiderasste" (the term for sex between two adult males).
3. I do not consider myself to be a revisionist. There is a difference between blithely redefine things according to one's own whims and coming to a conclusion that the position held by the majority of the Church is wrong and is misinterpreting the Scriptures. If you would call that "revisionism," you would have to call Jesus, Paul, and Martin Luther, revisionist. I did once believe that the Bible condemned homosexuality, per se. But that was before I studied the issue in greater depth, after which I came to the conclusion that my understanding of the Scripture was wrong.
4. I am heterosexual. Happily married. Two kids. Not that it would matter to my argument.
Please avoid ad-hominem attacks. They are demeaning and inappropriate in a dialogue between brothers in Christ.
In Christ's love,
Ken+
7 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Ken Howard,
Thanks for your response about one word translated effeminate or homosexual and your suggestion for an alternative which you would want the Holy Spirit to inspire the Apostle to used to mean what you want. Whichever way it refers to gay practice and is condemnable.
The Apostle went further than casuistry could manipulate in Romans 1, where he explained what he meant in sentences whichever word you would insist he should have used. It is clear that he meant adult gays and lesbian practice even with a single consistent partner.
What casuistry is manipulable to give Romans 1:26-28 some clever alternative meaning? We're waiting curiously. Shalom.
7 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Dear Ifechukwu,
Now to the Roman's verse.
I agree that those verses, taken out of context and using the translated English words, would APPEAR to condemn homosexuality, per se. But let's take them in context:
Verse 1:7 says that Paul is writing his epistle "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints...": In other words, he is writing to all of the Christians in Rome, who were a minority within a culture in which same-sex sexual behavior was considered an acceptable behavior and was widely practiced.
Verses 21-23 state that the people Paul is addressing were Christians who had become apostate and had returned to Pagan worship practices, exchanging the worship of "the incorruptible God" for the worship of images of men, birds, animals and reptiles (Pagan gods) which they themselves had made, possibly doing so in pagan temples. [Paul is condemning apostasy and idol worship]
Verse 24: implies that this lead to (God "gave them over to" or "abandoned them to") these apostate Christians engaging in (heterosexual) orgies among themselves (as part of these pagan fertility rites). [Paul is condemning pagan fertility rites and orgies]
Verse 25 states that these apostate Christians stopped worshiping the God who created them and instead turned to worshiping the idols that they themselves had created. [Paul is condemning idol worship].
Verse 26-7 state that because these apostate Christians engaged in these idolatrous and immoral practices, God "gave them over to" or "abandoned them to" engage in sexual activities with other women, and men with other men, either as punishment for ir or preceding further punishment for their practice of pagan sexual fertility rites.
Verse 28 states that because they "no longer saw fit to acknowledge God," God "gave them over" or "abandoned them" to a "depraved mind" and all sorts of other immoral behaviors (e.g., unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander, God-hating, insolence, arrogance, boastfulness, disobedience to parents, etc.).
So my conclusion remains that, in context, these verses do not condemn same-sex sexual activity, per se, but rather are against idol worship and pagan sexual fertility rites.
Hope this helps...
God's blessings be upon you,
Ken+
7 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Dear Ifechukwu,
Apparently, you are determined to be closed to any argument that YOUR preferred interpretation of Scripture is wrong. And you will call whatever I argue to be clever casuistry designed arrive at the meaning I prefer. If this was my modus oprerandi than I never would have come to the opinion that I know hold, because I once believed the Scriptures were rightly interpreted as opposing same-sex sexual activity, per se, and with study and prayer came to realize I was incorrect.
It seems that, despite your protestations to the contrary, you are closed to any interpretation other than the one you prefer, and that there can in your mind be no other outcome to our discussion than: Ifechukwu right, Ken wrong.
So I guess that means "end of discussion" and we will just agree to disagree and go our separate ways for now.
You will be in my prayers my brother.
In Christ's love,
Ken+
7 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Ken Howard.
Wow! You've done the expected Greek, researcher, Hebrew casuistry! How on earth did you arrive at such interpretation of verses 21ff? Where did you get that from? Is there any commentary or parallel passage of the Scripture (internally or externally) that could line up with this your reading? I've never heard or seen anything like this. Can somebody help please?
Without any big literary knowledge any child could handle this passage for comprehension and get it right. And you even try to blame the Church for getting things wrong? And you can't get this straight passage right?
Granted you seem to accept that homosexuality is punishement from God (do you mean it is not sin?). By your own interpretation then homosexuals are in pre-hell so why not preach and work for their deliverance and release from such damnation?
Why did you miss or jump the loud and clear point made in vs. 18-20? Is it intensional or by error.Please take a second look prayerfully and contextually and come again.
Romans 1:18-25
(18) God's anger is revealed from heaven against all the sin and evil of the people whose evil ways prevent the truth from being known.
(19) God punishes them, because what can be known about God is plain to them, for God himself made it plain.
(20) Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature, have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made. So those people have no excuse at all!
(21) They know God, but they do not give him the honor that belongs to him, nor do they thank him. Instead, their thoughts have become complete nonsense, and their empty minds are filled with darkness.
(22) They say they are wise, but they are fools;
(23) instead of worshiping the immortal God, they worship images made to look like mortals or birds or animals or reptiles.
(24) And so God has given those people over to do the filthy things their hearts desire, and they do shameful things with each other.
(25) They exchange the truth about God for a lie; they worship and serve what God has created instead of the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever! Amen.
Did the epistle anywhere indicate He was writing about apostate Christians in Rome anywhere or about idolatrous Gentile cultures who though they have not heard the prophetic revelation or Word still could not claim any excuse because the creation at least speaks loud enough about God's power and divine attributes.
7 days ago
• Like
Follow Br. James-Aidan
Br. James-Aidan Ketler, FOCD • Following these threads, I find it interesting that when we theologize about scripture, that we spend a great deal of time searching chapter and verse, in whatever language, to support our theories or suppositions, then we seek out a community that will agree with our tenets so we can then be assured that our interpretation is correct, at least in our preferred context. I know I am guilty of this myself, why is it that we try so hard to make scripture fit our life and experiences instead of looking at how our lives fit into the total narrative of Holy Scripture? It is so easy to use this process to judge and or condemn other people, but not to judge ourselves, when it comes to these controversies. Although there are plenty of scriptural statements to the contrary, I prefer what Jesus has said,
Matthew 7:1 RSV "Judge not, that you be not judged. Luke 6:37 RSV "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;
My point is, whatever our position we find ourselves in he human-sexuality issues, our tendency will be to question those statements that directly contradict our point of view and support and laud those statements that support our position. The Narrative of Scripture says what it says. We can use reason and tradition to help us understand how our lives should be conformed to scripture, or we can continue to live in the tension that is created when we try to make scripture fit our experience, if we are discomforted then perhaps the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us something.
7 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Br James,
The passages you quoted are not prohibition to sound judgment they are saying:
When you write-off someone by your own decision (other than God’s Word does) you are wasting your time and rather adding to things that will be used to judge you in addition to Biblical Standards.
Matthew 7:1-2
(1) Judge not, that ye be not judged.
(2) For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
7 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • JUDGE NOT but JUDGE YE.
John 7:24
(24) Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
I find it rather worrisome and even ridiculous that though everyone is judging yet everyone these days is hastening to accuse someone else of judging or evading being accused of judging. This is ridiculous and a big error born out poor knowledge of the Scriptures otherwise it must then be deception, hypocrisy and cheap blackmail:
Luke 12:56-57
(56) Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?
(57) Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?
The Christian Faith, contrary to the mistaken impressions of many, is a faith that is UNDER MANDATE TO JUDGE EVERYTHING WE SEE, SAY, HEAR OR DO. There cannot be authentic Christian Faith without necessity to judge what one hears and speaks, sees and does.
That we do not judge people's destinies BY OUR OWN IDEAS seems to be commonly mistaken to mean that we should not judge people's manners, morals, doctrines, decisions, etc BY THE STANDARDS OF THE SCRIPTURES. When you measure issues with God's Word, you are being careful to test every spirit and prove all things to ascertain what is right from wrong to follow and teach as example.
1Thessalonians 5:21-22
(21) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
(22) Abstain from all appearance of evil.
1John 4:1-3
(1) Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
(2) Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
(3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
7 days ago
• Like
Follow Neil
Neil Bryson • There are many things that disturb me in this discussion, one of which is the strident rush to judgment. This is ungodly. Another is being too quick to claim your interpretation of Scripture is the only one. As Br James-Aidan points out, we need the whole counsel of the Word of God - the totality of the Biblical witness - not just some pet verses we've cobbled together "proving" we are right
There is such a sense of condemnation allied to self-righteousness coming across. I am glad none of us is the judge of all the earth because some contributors are using Law, by which every one of us is condemned. We should preach the good news of grace, that Jesus has come to bring freedom to all of us, and leave it to the Holy Spirit to bring conviction of sin (it is His job!).
To those who are so quick to quote pithy verses from Leviticus and Romans, please do not make claims that are tantamount to saying you alone have the correct interpretation of Scripture (which amounts to using a concordance to look up scatterings of verses to support your view, without taking the whole Bible into account). You don't have the answer or the truth: Christ Himself is the answer; He alone is the Way, the Truth and the Life. He is the Author and Finisher of our faith. Concentrate your attention on Jesus and leave the rest to Him. "Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the Queen." (If you'll permit me to lift verses out of context! And adapt it to the Commonwealth context where we have a Queen. And, in a change from Romans, this quotation is I Peter 2:17, AV.)
7 days ago
• Like
3
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Thank you, Neil, for your gracious comment.
My way of approaching Scripture is informed by my Jewish upbringing. We call it "Midrash" set the totality of what the Scripture seems to say and the Rabbis (Teachers) have to say on any subject in the Scripture and you begin to triangulate in on what God may have to say on the subject. It cannot be otherwise, since there is no reading of scripture that is not an interpretation, no reading of Scripture that is not influence by one's own subjective predispositions on the subject. So we need not to just tolerate disagreement, but value it, because it gets us to a larger point of view which is closer to God (Ysrael, after all, literally means, "argues with God."
I have written about this in more depth in my book, "Paradoxy: Creating Christian Community Beyond Us and Them." Click here for a preview: http://bit.ly/ParadoxyExcerpt
I even need Ifechukwu, and would dialogue with him as a brother in Christ. Unfortunately, he seems uninterested in anything beyond calling me names.
Blessings!
Ken+
7 days ago
• Like
Follow Irvine
Irvine Grey B.Th.(QUB), M.A.(Manc) • The clarity of Scripture on all sin and that includes the sin of homosexual practice premeates both the Old and New Testaments. One of the best and one that gives the sinner real hope is found in 1 Corithians 6:9-11 'Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually imoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor theives, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jeus Christ and by the Spirit of our God'. 'And such were some of you' is a past tense giving hope to all sinners of the transformation and regeneration by grace and all of the Trinity are involved - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Gospel of redemption through Christ is where our emphasis should be.
7 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Leslie
Leslie Ferguson • And with this I bid adieu. I had hope that we would be able to have a civil, non-accusatory conversation but that hope has been dashed. God's peace and guidance be with you all.
7 days ago
• Like
Follow Irvine
Irvine Grey B.Th.(QUB), M.A.(Manc) • Leslie I hope it is not my comment that has provoked this response!
7 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Dear Irvine,
"arsenokoites," the Greek term often translated as "homosexuals," is actually an ancient term, the precise meaning of which has been lost, and is open to various interpretation. But it need not refer to "homosexuals" since there was separate specific Greek word for those who engage in male-male sex ("paideraste").
Blessings!
Ken+
7 days ago
• Like
Follow Irvine
Irvine Grey B.Th.(QUB), M.A.(Manc) • Thanks Ken
7 days ago
• Like
Follow Lee
Lee Walker • Ken, and thank you for your gracious comments. I had hoped this forum would be a global forum (which it is) where Anglicans of different views on this subject could share and discuss not so much in hopes of "winning a debate" or "converting everyone to a single view," but rather in hopes of helping each other understand both the views of other people who have different beliefs and understandings and also to understand the other person as a Human Being and child of God. A little of that exists here, but all too often, I found name calling, judgement, condemnation, and other unChristian statements. I have heard people in this forum make sweeping statements about those who differ from them, sweeping statements asserting "facts" that the person making them cannot possibly know about others from the few comments made here. I have been told in this forum that I have no relationship with Christ. Only Christ knows what my relationship with Him is. I have heard that I am wallowing in my sin. How can anyone in this forum save Christ know if I wallow in sin or if I heroically wrestle with my circumstances in life? Some here only seem to want to judge and condemn while closing their ears to any voice that differs. I personally know how harmful and destructive that kind judgement and condemnation is. I have never met one single gay person who has moved closer to Christ because of the kind of insulting and judgmental statements some folk hurl at their brothers and sisters in this forum. Christ does not win us over by terrorizing us out of hell, but by loving us into Heaven. I hope that in the future, more participants in this discussion will have the charity to listen to those with whom they differ to find how Christ is working in that person's life. Take the time to answer those who ask specific questions about what you have said. Build on the common ground we have in Our Risen Lord and not on judgement which Scripture rightly tells us is reserved to Christ alone. For only Christ knows the entirety of our hearts and who we are. Praise God that Jesus Christ will judge me on that and not solely on what I have said in this forum :-) !!!
7 days ago
• Like
2
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Lee, your words are not only gracious but so true. It is the love of Christ that transforms hearts, not the fear of hell.
7 days ago
• Like
2
Follow Chief Apostle John
Chief Apostle John Mix • I can not believe you are still arguing over this. Homosexuality is a sin. End of discussion. Now what are you doing out there in the highways and sidewalks to help the lost find there way!!! To love them and tell them they are a victim of the enemy and Jesus Christ hung on that cross for them and shed is blood so they could be free of this sexual bondage spirit that is right it is a Stronghold sexual perversion spirit!! they are victims they were not born this way!! I don't hear anyone mention about generational curses. You do not know what this family generation has done against God's eyes. Why is it that you waiting for Jesus to do the work, When he is waiting for you to step up to the plate and lay hands on the lost, perverted, the sick, and command those Strongholds and generational curses to broken in Jesus mighty name. Abba sent his son here Jesus Christ to make a final covenant with us for salvation and eternal life. He also came to train us how to do his works in his name. He said not only do I do great and mighty things, But even you will do even greater and mightier things than I have done. What greater than our Lord and Savor, Master and King. You talk about great things about scripture. But were is your fruit!! show me some Fruit produce some great and mighty miracles. I cant believe there some on here that say I have been a counselor for years and they are born this way!!! That is a lie from the pit of hell!! If that is true then God's word is no good. Has no truth!!!! Why are you allowing these deceiving spirits come upon you!!! The word of God was written for all to understand!!! You are to smart for your own good. All I read here is intelligence NO REVELATION NONE!!!! You can't heal a flee without Revelation and the glory of God!! which brings truth and the light!!! Do any of you know you have the authority to forgive them for there sins stripping the enemy of all there rights and casting the accuser and destroying those generational curses. It was the last command Jesus gave to his people I say that because if I say Apostles everyone will say he said that to only Apostles But he so has my father has sent me so I send you, If you forgive that one of there sins they are forgiven in heaven, If you do not forgive them of there sins they are not forgiven. I let you find that scripture for yourself. Why because sin is what bounds a sinner. and Jesus Christ has given you authority to destroy the right of the evil spirits to bound that person. Lets start laying hands on them casting these demons out and helping them see the light for the truth shall set you free!!!!
God Bless You!!!!!
Shabot!! Shalom!!!
Chief Apostolic Apostle Archbishop Dr. John Mix
www.peciccc.org
601-262-5292
7 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • My dear brother with 5 Titles Mix,
Amidst your self-righteous, scornful, judgmental, diatribe against those, who like me are brothers and sisters in Christ who happen to disagree with you on this one issues, you said one thing I absolutely agree with: "End of discussion." Where there is no openness to the possibility one might be wrong in one's interpretation of Scripture, there is no room for discussion, and no room for revelation either.
I entered this discussion with an open mind and have tried -- in the face of great provocation, I might add -- to treat everyone with the same love and respect that I believe Christ would have. But I can see there really is no possibility for discussion when one side is unwavering in the certainty of their interpretation, which in turn implies a belief in the sinlessness of their own mind, which is perhaps the most subtle and yet most deadly form of idolatry we humans are prone to, because it prevents God's Holy Spirit from getting through to the one infected by it with anything different from what they already believe (and it affects both liberals and conservatives).
I don't remember who it was who reflected on the WWII holocaust with this thought: "We are closest to doing the worst evil when we are convinced of our own goodness."
So good bye all, I'm to go to talk with some people who are actually willing to listen.
7 days ago
• Like
5
Follow Neil
Neil Bryson • To the self-styled chief apostle Max: in the RC, Orthodox and Anglican Churches, only an episcopally ordained priest can grant absolution. You can't be an Anglican, or you'd know that, yet you feel yourself entitled to pontificate to us Anglicans.
To Ken and Lee, I see we are in agreement. I wrote yesterday how saddened I was by the condemnatory, judgmental, self-righteous comments on this thread. You are right: there is simply no attempt from certain contributors to engage in respectful discussion because they think their point of view is right. I suppose they flatter themselves that because they are open to God, or use a particular type of hermeneutics and exegesis, that God won't let them make a mistake. Yet I bet these same people have trouble with the infallibility of the Pope!
Respect and humility ought to be the hallmarks of Christian discussions. Isn't there a Bible verse that says so?
Remember the first person in the verse, "We have the mind of Christ" is plural. With respectful and loving discussion on this thread, we could have been discovering what Christ's mind is, but all we get is the same list of verses "proving" the absolute rightness of a particular hermeneutic, divorced from the message of the whole Bible which is that God is 100% committed to our salvation. Trust Him to work in your own lives, my brothers and sisters, as well as in those of others. Remember the Pharisee and the publican: which one went home justified by God? The self-righteous man who pointed to his law-keeping and condemned the other man who didn't, or the humble man who did not thunder judgment at anyone, but asked for God's mercy?
If we all minded our own business and lifted Jesus Christ - the Person - higher, we would do far better in God's eyes, if my hermeneutic is correct. He is committed to His mission: it is His, not ours, and the Holy Spirit does a terrific job of shining His light in dark corners to expose hypocrisy, hatred, self-righteousness and all manner of sin. That is His job: don't presume to do it for Him. Jesus calls us to preach the Good News throughout the world: let us do that and leave the conviction of sin, repentance and salvation up to the Lord.
7 days ago
• Like
4
Follow Bob
Bob O'Brien • Neil I agree that we should be preaching the good news to the world. Part of that is to point out what God considers to be sin and to call for repentance. If we do not do this we allow the sinner to continue as he is and there is no transforming work taking place. If we want to say God will accept every kind of sinful behavior then we might as well become universalists as that is what they think. I believe that God defined proper relationships and behavior in relationships in the Bible. If one does not adhere to the Biblical standard then he is rightly called a sinner and needs to repent and leave his sin. Which means, for those who are not husband and wife, that they are to remain chaste in the area of sexuality, not lie, not steal or covet. That is what we are discussing. Is God's standard to be met or not. If not then be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.
6 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Chief Apostle John
Chief Apostle John Mix • Pastor OBrien:
Very well said dido!!!!!! God Bless You!!! Shabot!!! Shalom!!!
Chief Apostolic Apostle Archbishop Dr. John Mix
www.peciccc.org
601-262-5292
6 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • http://www.nakedpastor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/choose-your-weapons.jpg
6 days ago
• Like
Follow Lee
Lee Walker • Bob (O'Brien), I am in total agreement with you that an essential part of proclaiming the Good News is pointing out sin and making a call to repentance. As far as I can tell, everyone in this forum agrees on that. What we don't agree on is whether or not same-gender sexual expression in a committed relationship is sin. In the Episcopal Church, questions about the conventional teaching on homosexuality began to come forward as more and more clergy encountered members of the Church who were in committed same gender relationships and who, in every other way, seemed to be exemplary Christians. It was also noticed that many of these homosexuals told personal stories that revealed disastrous and broken relationships with God, self, and others when they lived by the Church's conventional teaching. These same personal stories revealed that those same relationships were greatly healed and strengthened when they embraced their homosexual nature. It was also noticed that all the facts about how heterosexuals who are married are generally emotionally and physically healthier and live longer also applies to homosexuals who are married. The seeming paradox was that if such same gender relationships are sin, then they are the only sin that improves people's lives (if they are gay) when embraced and strengthens relationship with God. My hope had been that this forum would be a place where we could gain insight into the lives of those Christians who differ from us in very significant matters. Alas, most of what I have heard is not a grace filled "call to repentance," but a disturbingly enthusiastic flood of hellfire and damnation.
6 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • THERE IS NO VALID CHRISTIAN TRUTH THAT HAS ANY SPIRITUAL POWER AND VERITY IF IT LACKS “IT IS WRITTEN”. Even Satan knows that. But what is written here must be compared with what is written there.
There is a false and absurdly fashionable impression by some today that they have their own valid interpretation of the Scriptures that does not need proof or pet texts, or must not be subjected to the acid test of the Scriptures. THEY WOULD ACCUSE AND BLACKMAIL EVERY BODY THAT DISAGREES WITH THEM AS JUDGING THEM WHICH ACCUSATION IS TANTAMOUNT TO JUDGING IN ITSELF. Any idea that has no Scriptural “pet and proof text” remains in the social domain but not good enough or of any value for eternal salvation.
The other gross absurdity or fallacy today is to AGITATE that someone must avoid quoting pet or proof texts to make any Scriptural point. That is complete nonsense that should never be welcome or espoused in the Christian Faith. Christ and the Apostles have left us the only valid example for the Christian Faith which we either follow or miss it. All historic Confessions and Article of Faith have maintained this stand.
Those who do not show any Scriptural references and basis for their claims should NEVER BE TRUSTED. They should keep their “pet and proof ideas” to themselves or inquire what the pet and proof Scripture texts teach. Christianity has no place for “pet and proof philosophies and ideologies” that lack pet and proof biblical basis.
It is rather strange to make outlandish claims about a document without sample reference to the said document. Many who make such claims of speaking for Christianity without proof texts are usually erroneous people who have no time for nor are conversant with the Scriptures. But go about peddling their FAULTY PET AND PROOF IDEAS, which are of no value whatsoever in spiritual eternal matters of the Christian Faith.
Let me say this loud and clear.
ANY OPINION ABOUT CHRISTIAN SPIRITUALITY THAT HAS NO BACKING (PET OR PROOF) TEXTS FROM SCRIPTURES IS LESS LIKELY TO BE CHRISTIAN. In the Church it is a foundational rule after Christ’s example beginning with His wilderness temptation to speak from the Scriptures and though Satan hates that, we will never give in to keeping the Scriptures behind. Those who find “It is written” repulsive are certainly prone to error as far as Christian Truth is concerned.
6 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Bob O'Brien,
Hmmm. I must be a glutton for punishment. As Neil said, we all agree that Jesus in WAY, THRUTH, and LIFE. We all agree that all humankind exist in a state of sin and need to experiance repentance (to be turned toward God) and reconciliation (to be brought back into a loving and faithful relationship with God).
Where we differ is on who has to achieve this. You and John and Ifechukwho seem to believe that it is up to fallen human beings like yourselves (and the rest of us) to accomplish this by telling non-believers that they cannot have any relationship/experience Christ's love until they have given you proof that they believe correctly (exactly like you) and turn away from everything everything you interpret from the Scriptures as being a sin, and until they do, you will stand in the way of them experiencing the love of Christ. What this implies is: (a) that you are absolutely certain that your understanding of the Holy Scripture is without error (which is a form of self idolatry), and (b) that you do not sufficiently trust Christ's love and the power of the Holy Spirit to transform people's hearts with a human intermediary standing by to coerce them.
Myself, I believe that they Christ's love and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit are more than powerful enough to change hearts, bring about repentance, and accomplish reconciliation without any coercive help from me, and probably even more effectively than with my help. Because, you see, since we are all fallen, we all stand the chance of being wrong even where we are most certain. My job is not to convert people, but to introduce people to Jesus Chrisr, help them to experience the awesome power of his transforming and redeeming love, and then to get myself out of the way. It's not for me to make you like me. It's not for you to make me like you. It's for Christ to transform each of us into being more like Him.
I believe the Sciptures are the inspired word of God. But I also believe state the Scriptures do not say the same-sex relationships are evil. I believe that they have been misinterpreted. But I don't think that God considers our disagreement to keep you or me or gay and lesbian followers of Jesus out of the kingdom of God.
6 days ago
• Like
2
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Ken Howard,
You seem to "believe" incongruously from what you read and speak from the Scriptures on homosexual relations and other sins that are like it in the simple portion of Rom 1 which you muddled up earlier viz:
"(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting"
Your self acclaimed expertly but obviously muddled up interpretation of this portion was:
"Verse 26-7 state that because these apostate Christians engaged in these idolatrous and immoral practices, God "gave them over to" or "abandoned them to" engage in sexual activities with other women, and men with other men, either as punishment for ir or preceding further punishment for their practice of pagan sexual fertility rites.
Verse 28 states that because they "no longer saw fit to acknowledge God," God "gave them over" or "abandoned them" to a "depraved mind" and all sorts of other immoral behaviors (e.g., unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander, God-hating, insolence, arrogance, boastfulness, disobedience to parents, etc.)."
You seem to have an autoctonus and private idea of what is Christian truth and faith as if we are in search of a faith. But Christians are not looking for new truth or faith, we already know our truth we believe in. We are are only reminding ourselves what is allready taught, believed and written for us.
You judge and condemn any view that reasons consistently and congruously as self-idolatry yet you self idolise your incongruous reasoning that betrays strangely poor conversance with the Scriptures with no commitment to upholding it either. What will you call and judge a preacher who keeps to apostolic counsel and charge such as these?
2Timothy 4:1-5
(1) I charge you therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
(2) Preach the word; be diligent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
(3) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they draw to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
(4) And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto myths.
(5) But you watch in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fully carry out your ministry.
Titus 1:9
(9) Holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to refute the opposition.
Your dexcription of true Christians who practice homosexuality, fornication, etc and see nothing wrong with these reminds me of:
Titus 1:16
(16) They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
6 days ago
• Like
Follow Irvine
Irvine Grey B.Th.(QUB), M.A.(Manc) • I can recommend a wonderful book on this subject that should help clarify matters for most and is well grounded in Scripture with sound exegesis - 'Holiness and Sexuality: Homosexuality in a biblical context'. Edited by David Peterson and published by Paternoster 2004.
6 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Dear Ifechukwu,
It's ironic that you accuse me of judging/condemning you, since from the beginning I have tried to speak what I understand to be the truth to you with respect & love, while you have responded with scorn, derision & judgment, questioning my sexuality, my commitment to my Lord & Savior, even my Christian faith. You demand Biblical “proof” but refuse to entertain anything but your pre-selected proof texts in your preferred translation & language. I argue from the original Greek text of Roman 1, giving context (the entire paragraph) & word meanings, & you dismiss my argument as sophistry & call it muddled because it doesn’t limit itself to your 2 proof text verses & your preferred interpretation of them.
It is possible, you know, to handle the Scriptures literally AND be wrong. This was Jesus' argument with the Sadducees (Mt 22:23-34; cf Mk 12). Their literalism was based on the 5 books of Moses. They tried to entrap Jesus because they condemned any idea (e.g., the resurrection of the dead) not be literally found in Gen., Exod., Lev., Num., or Deut., His response was instructive: “You are wrong, because you do not know the Scriptures or the Spirit of God.” And then refuted them, not from a proof text but from the IMPLICATIONS of God’s being the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob.
You assert that nothing can be valid or true unless it can be begun with “it is written” & accompanied by a proof text. Ironic, since in Mt 4:6 the proof text that Satan offers Jesus is much more literal/specific than the general principle Jesus quotes in response (Mt 4:7). Clearly, even literal/specific proof texts, taken out of context, can be wrong.
Of course we must ground our arguments in Scripture. The real question is, where do start? What is the kerygma (key) that unlocks the meaning? If we start our analysis of the issue of homosexuality with your Leviticus texts (or even the Pauline texts), we risk repeating the error of the Sadducees: starting from the wrong place.
Where SHOULD we start? I believe we MUST always start in the Gospels, with the words of Christ, & specifically His recital of the heart of the Law: (1) “Love the Lord your God with all your heart & mind & strength” & (2) “Love your neighbor as yourself.” All the rest of the Scriptures are commentary on those words AND be viewed/interpreted through their lens. And as I am sure you realize, that among all of Jesus' words, there is not a single word directly condemning (or even mentioning) homosexuality.
Another irony: I personally believe Jesus made it VERY clear that he was opposed to all killing: "You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, "You shall not murder'; and "whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, "You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire" (Mt 5:21-22). Yet if I were to bar the doors of the church to any one who believed war & capital were acceptable behavior for Christians, it would be a pretty lonely place.
So here's my suggestion: I will not bar the doors of the church to those who supports war/capital punishment out of the church, if those who oppose who homosexuality will refrain from trying to keep Gay & Lesbian people out. Then, I suggest we trust that God is great enough, powerful enough, and convincing enough to take care of making any changes in our hearts, minds & behaviors that God deems necessary.
Farewell, my bother in Christ. My prayers are with you & I am going to keep on trying to love you like Christ does, even though you make liking you difficult.
In Christ’s love,
Ken+
5 days ago
• Like
3
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Ps. [to Ifechukwu].
[You judge and condemn any view that reasons consistently and congruously as self-idolatry yet you self idolise your incongruous reasoning that betrays strangely poor conversance with the Scriptures with no commitment to upholding it either.]
Actually, I judge & condemn no one. I merely point out that to refuse to entertain even the possibility that one's understanding of Scripture might be even the smallest human error is to elevate the human mind to a place it should not be. The human mind is as fallen as the rest of human faculties. Therefore human understanding, even of the Scriptures (even the Church's understanding), can never be perfect, never be complete, and must be open to correction. To claim otherwise puts the human mind in the place of God. And that is idolotry (which is why pride is such a deadly sin).
[What will you call and judge a preacher who keeps to apostolic counsel and charge such as these?
2Timothy 4:1-5
(1) I charge you therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
(2) Preach the word; be diligent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
(3) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they draw to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
(4) And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto myths.
(5) But you watch in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fully carry out your ministry.
Titus 1:9
(9) Holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to refute the opposition.]
I would not judge or call them anything at all. Partly because I thing that would be wrong. But mostly because I agree: I think both texts are wise council. But that wouldn't stop me from respectfully/lovingly arguing with them if they made a statement I believed to be in error.
[Your dexcription of true Christians who practice homosexuality, fornication, etc and see nothing wrong with these reminds me of:
Titus 1:16
(16) They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.]
Allow me to clarify one thing: You seem to think I am arguing that all manner of sinful behavior be considered acceptable. But I am not.
It is only the Scriptural case against homosexuality that I believe is in error. I think those who would advocate keeping an entire category of people out of the Church have a high bar to meet to justify such action, establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that that is what God requires. And I don't think a half-dozen texts, for which a legitimate case can be made for alternate translations, reaches that standard.
In Christ's love,
Ken+
5 days ago
• Like
3
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Dear Ken Howard,
Well you have failed to show how the Scripture is weak on homosexuality despite describing it as "vileness, un-natural and anti-natural passion" in Rom 1:26 and "unatural, shameful error and retribution worthy behaviour" in Rom 1:27. No sin has been described is stronger terms in the Bible. You've got stuck with your search for alternative meanings to arsenokoites when you do not know what it means in the first instance.
Why do you usually get things wrong? Do you read the Scriptures or do you talk off hand while claiming you speak from Scriptures? I’m afraid you seem have penchant for getting simple things upside down. Is this also a trait of homosexuality? Why is it always so? Please do something about this. I’m really concerned about you.
You said the Sadducees erred because they quoted the Scriptures literally and Jesus corrected them without quoting any proof texts. How could this be so from this text? You are simply mistaken on both points.
(A)
Where is the Sadducees literalism in this passage?
Matthew 22:23-28
(23) The same day came to him the Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
(24) Saying, Teacher, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up children unto his brother.
(25) Now there were with us seven brothers: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no child, left his wife unto his brother:
(26) Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
(27) And last of all the woman died also.
(28) Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
(B)
Jesus did the opposite of what you said. He faulted the Sadducees NOT FOR LITERALISM but for not using Scriptures in making their point. Jesus then replies by making a LITERARY us of a proof text, the very same thing you abhor. Where is the evidence that Jesus did not use proof text in this passage?
Matthew 22:29-33
(29) Jesus answered and said unto them, You do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
(30) For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
(31) But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
(32) “I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB”? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
(33) And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
My approach is the Jesus approach. I don't know which is yours.
Shalom.
4 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Dear Brother Ifechukwu,
I am glad you think I failed to show that Scripture was weak on homosexuality. Because I was not trying to show that Scripture is weak on ANYTHING. The only thing I was trying to show that was weak was YOUR INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE.
I don't have time to respond in detail right now (I have a church to tend to -- a relatively newly planted church, growing, baptizing new believers all the time, full of people who know and love and love to learn about Jesus Christ). I'll respond to your questions when I get a chance (tho I will say that, as usual, the way you are asking them would seem to indicated that you haven't paid very close attention to my arguments).
You use the Jesus approach? Great! That is my approach, too. Here's what I do. I start with prayer, asking the Holy Spirit to open my mind and heart to the Scriptures, and for the love of Jesus Christ to inform and infuse all that I do. Then I read what Jesus has to say about the subject (in the the original Greek if necessary, because sometimes its important to get as close to his original words as possible to be sure one understand the literal meaning of His words and any idioms he may have employed to get his point across, since sometimes modern English doesn't have entirely equivalent words). Then, and only then (after reading what Jesus has to say), I read what the Epistles have to say, and then what the Hebrew Scriptures have to say. After that I weigh what the Church has had to say and what commentators have to say. That's the way we go about it in the Anglican tradition: Scripture, Tradition, Reason.
How do you go about your study of Scripture? Do you start with what Jesus has to say on the subject, too? If so, I'd be curious what particular words of Jesus you start with on the subject of homosexuality...
Praying for you, my brother.
Shalom b'Yeshuah,
Ken+
4 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Dear Bro Ken Howard.
Thank God for your ministry but remember that whether you think the Scripture is strong or weak on anything, you are bound to uphold all in Christ's Church.
Wha word's of Jesu do I remember? I remember the last words of Jesus in the Bible (with its apostolic inspired commentary) which applies also to all Scripture "strong or weak".
Revelation 22:16-20
(16) I Jesus have sent my angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
(17) And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is thirsty come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
(18) For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
(19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(20) He who testifies these things says, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
4 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Dear Brother Ifechukwu,
I totally agree that I am bound to teach the living Word of God in the Scriptures.
Still, I am not bound to teach another's interpretation of the Scripture (for example, yours) if I believe it to be wrong. If I did, I would be violating Rev. 22:19 (above), as well as the spirit of words to Timothy, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15).
Also, we both must remember that it is, after all, CHRIST'S Church (not yours/not mine). And ultimately, however you and I may think about homosexuality, it is not our job -- we who are the "slaves" and not the "master" -- to separate the "wheat" from the "weeds." That is GOD's job, not ours, and even then God will "let both of them grow together until the harvest" and only "at harvest time" does he speak of any winnowing (Matt 13:28:30).
If God is content to leave the sorting out until then, I am content to defer my own judgment as to who ought to be IN and who ought to be OUT. Because I am a fallen human being (as are you). And thus I could be wrong in my interpretation (as could you). And you and I will both probably be surprised at some of the people whom our Lord Jesus admits into the kingdom of Heaven in the end (Matt 25:31-46).
In Christ's love,
Ken+
4 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Dear Brother Ifechukwu,
I was going to just give the reference, but Matt 25:31-46 has always been so stunning to me, I thought I would include it after all.
Ken+
31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' 40 And the king will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.' 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, "You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44 Then they also will answer, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?' 45 Then he will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
4 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • BTW, Ifechukwu, I do really love those verses from Revelation you quoted!
4 days ago
• Like
Follow Bob
Bob O'Brien • Ken, There is a person between accepting the person and accepting his sin. I can commit a horrible crime and still be accepted as a member in good standing in the church as long as I am willing to admit that I was wrong and vow not to engage in that kind of behavior again. It is not that I have sinned that would cause me to be put out of the congregation. It is that I did not repent and stop doing the sin that would cause that.
If you claim to be attracted to the same sex but remain chaste I have not problem with accepting you into the fellowship of the body. However, if you claim attraction and then live the lifestyle of the gay community I would not be able to accept you into the body as you are by your own admission an unrepentant sinner.
The orientation is not the problem for me it is the activity which at least in my reading of Genesis and Paul's Epistles states that men lying with men or women with women is sinful. Also did Jesus not say that what we bind on earth will be bound in heaven and what we loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
4 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Bob,
Thanks for that clarification. I agree with you entirely.
When a sinner or criminal admits s/he has sinned, that is the beginning of solution.
But when s/he insists that sin is not sin/crime or not strongly sinful enough, that is the beginning of problem.
Even the law courts have learned this from the Church, but the Church today is working hard to unknow!
4 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Because this discussion is about the "Authority And Authenticity Of The Bible for the Church", let me share this here:
For the Church, the Scripture as God's Word is not like a theory or idea to be revised.
It is the Standard Truth that authenticates all things pertaining to our Faith and Fellowship, our Worship and Witness, our Walk and Work.
The best we should do as Christians is to hold the Scriptures as the infallible prophetic Word, and the authentic measure (Standard Weight or Meter-Rule) of faith, truth, reason, tradition and experience so that our dark hearts will be illuminated to daylight (2Pet 1:19). When our reason, tradition and experience contradict the Scriptures (or do not fit into the measures of the Scripture) then we err in faith and truth. This is the problem with justifying homosexuality and other sinful vices whether legalised or not.
All the writings of the Scripture are God-breathed (Inspired) to have the power to make people wise toward the saving faith in Christ (2Tim 3:15) and ultimately can equip and empower every God-dedicated person toward every good work with any eternal value (2Tim 3:17). This is why every Scripture is always profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and righteous training (2Tim 3:16).
The writers of the Scriptures are best placed and most authentic messengers of the Divine Message (Word or Logos) while the words and phraseology of the Scriptures are the most accurate means of communicating the Divine Message.
The closer we are (Literarily than Literally) to these inspired words and phraseology of Bible writers in context, the truer our interpretation and understanding of the Divine Word or Message.
The Scripture is the standard measure or canon of the Christian Faith and Witness. Its equivalents in science are the old Units of measure: the ounce, the inch, the gallon, the minute. Tampering with the value of any of these is fraud or error.
We could liken Modern Reason and Experience to the new units of measure: the gram, the meter, the litre, etc. When using Reason and Tradition, you must make sure you use accurate conversion ratios to arrive at the same measure as the Scripture. Just as we do in every true science (and even in currency conversion).
4 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Dear Ifechukwu,
No time to respond in detail. Leaving for church services shortly.
But when did we get into weights and measures and law courts? I guess I must have hit a nerve with my last post.
Talk to you later.
Ken+
3 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Dear Bob,
No time to respond in detail (see above). Agree with you in principle but not the case in point. Since as I understand them, the half-dozen verses in question DO NOT apply to homosexuality (same-sex-oriented individuals engaging in same-sex sexual activity), the principle is not applicable.
In Christ's love,
Ken+
ps. To what Genesis texts do you refer?
3 days ago
• Like
Follow Rev, Canon Tony W.
Rev, Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester • Ezekiel Wanje, :God rained fire and brimstone on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Why? Because of rampant homosexuality." Does scripture really say that?
Be careful how you interpret scripture, especially such a well known passage as Sodom and Gomorrah. Everybody knows the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah because the bible gives it's own interpretation and tells us in Isaiah 1: 10,11; Jeremiah 23:13,14; Ezekiel 16:49,50; cf Matthew 10:9-15; these verses all point out that the sin of Sodom was non-hospitality to strangers, acted out in gang rape not homosexuality..
3 days ago
• Like
Follow Fr. Don
Fr. Don Perschall • Ken+ you wrote and I quote: "Since as I understand them, the half-dozen verses in question DO NOT apply to homosexuality (same-sex-oriented individuals engaging in same-sex sexual activity), the principle is not applicable."
The Greek simply does not support this position. Blessings. +Don+
3 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Rev, Canon Tony W.
Rev, Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester • Fr. Don. So what does the Greek then actually say and support?
3 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Dear Ken Howard,
Thanks for the Scriptural reference (Matt 25:31-46). I love it.
Notice that there was a separation of the "righteous" to the right and the others (i.e. the unrighteous) to the left.
Notice that the righteous were doing their best to even admit they have not done enough rather than say their sins were not sinful enough as you and the homosexuals do.
Notice that the others (i.e. the unrighteous) were doing their best to deny they had done any wrong or not enough wrong.
This is the point I'm making that when we belittle our sin we are in danger of damnation because we deride transforming grace.
What we should do is rather to belittle our righteousness and seek grace for more transformation not belittle our sin and ignore transforming grace as you and the homosexuals do.
You see, when you say homosexuality is not very sinful, you reject the grace that would transform you above the evil power of homosexuality. And this attitude will be exhibited even on the judgment day. It’s frighteningly dicey and dangerous! We must not take sin lightly as you seem to toy about with homosexuality.
2Corinthians 5:9-11a
(9) Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
(10) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
(11) Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; ......
3 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Don+
I'm guessing you haven't been following the discussion so far, because in previous posts I have included in context analysis of the half-dozen texts involved, both the Hebrew texts and the Greek texts.
In my opinion, NONE of those texts deal with homosexuality, per se (same-sex-oriented people involved in same-sex sexual activity). Some describe male-male (heterosexual male-heterosexual male) temple prostitution. Some describe fertility rite orgies, in which heterosexual men and women engaged in both male-female and male-male sexual activity. Some likely describe man-boy (heterosexual male adult to boy) sexual activity, but not adult male to adult male activity, because it avoids the Greek word which specifically means that.
And since our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ DOES NOT address this issue in any way, I would have to say it is the "anti-homosexuality" position that is not supported by the Greek (and Hebrew).
Blessings,
Ken+
3 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Dear Ifichukwu,
Let me be clear.
I am not saying homosexuality is "not very sinful."
I am say that homosexuality, per se, is "not sinful at all."
I will be happy to go over all the Hebrew and Greek texts with you again if you want, and to respond to your many questions in your above posts...but not today...
In Christ's love,
Ken+
3 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Ken Howard,
Please don't deceive Don+.
You have done no such thing. If you have, could you paste it again please? Or repeat your much talked about "interpretation" for Don+ to see.
You have stumbled at a detailed descriptive portion in Romans 1:25-28 which did not use any word but used phrases.
Romans 1:25-29
(25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
(27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
(29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
3 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • My dear brother, Ifechukwu,
You should not so easily accuse others of deception, especially since you should remember discussions you and I had, about the Leviticus, Romans, 2 Corinthians, etc. texts which you had quoted to me as condemning homosexuality, and especially since, after each discussion, you went to great lengths to discount my reasoning as sophistry, to say I was confused, or to change the subject.
I will happy re-post for Don+ if he would like.
But please don't call me a liar.
Ad homenum attacks prove nothing and are unbecoming of followers of Jesus.
Blessings,
Ken+
3 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Ken Howard,
Repost whatever you call interpretation for a second opinion or whatever reason. Repost or restate them. Your claims are not true please. Or OK you deceive yourself not Fr Don.
You do not interprete any Scriptures. You merely state what is in your mind with no rational, logical or grammatical connection to the context or content of any Scripture.
3 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Ifechukwu,
Okay, now I am confused. Is there another Ifechukwu Ibeme I when line by line thru the context of the Romans passage with, laying out rationale, logic, and grammar?
I know you disagreed with it and dismissed it, but that doesn't mean I didn't do it.
In any event, I'll let Fr. Don speak for himself, if he wants me to lay it out for him, I will be happy to...
In Christ's love,
Ken+
3 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Dear Fr. Don,
Let me know your druthers on reposting my responses to Ifichukwu on the various Scripture passages he raised. Some are more detailed than others, the longest being my discussion of the Romans 1 passage.
Happy to have a conversation on this if that is what you are looking for. But I don't want to waste your time (and mine) if you don't.
In Christ's love,
Ken+
3 days ago
• Like
Follow Bob
Bob O'Brien • Ken, You can try to rationalize away the Biblical injunctions against immorality in Romans and Corinthians. The basic injunction is to stay away from all forms of sexual immorality. These include adultery, fornication, pedophilia, homosexuality, bestiality and any others you can think of. Jesus also said that if you look on another lustfully you have committed sin in your heart. Immorality in its most basic form is an attitude of the heart and is not focused on the other but on the self. It is a very selfish means of forming relationships because its focus is on pleasing the self not the other. If you wish to be right with God then flee from the immorality that focuses on the self and shift the focus on doing the best for the other.
3 days ago
• Like
2
Follow Scott
Scott Elliott • Ken, I really admire your grace and tenacity, and willingness to engage in discussion, even in the face of...let's call it 'obstacles'. But I'm pretty sure if you were going to be heard and understood, you would at least have been heard by now.
With very few exceptions, this entire thread has been characterized by intransigence and mindless repetition -- of mere proof-texts, of position statements, of failures to grasp (much less genuinely consider) the other's statements or experience.
If I think you're wrong, I must consider why you might be right; but if I *know* you're wrong, I don't have to consider anything at all about you.
So, as the great social and political philosopher, Kenny Rogers, counsels: "Ya gotta know when to hold 'em, known when to fold 'em...."
Blessings to you,
Scott
2 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Dear Bob,
I'd like to clarify something.
RATIONALIZE (def): Attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.
I am not engaged in rationalization. Rationalization would imply that I started with a belief that homosexuality was not a sin, then went looking for Biblical arguments that would support the view I already had. This is the opposite of what happened in my case. A Christian of Jewish origin, I began my Christian journey in the conservative "side" of the Church, and started with the assumption that the conservative position (the Bible says that homosexuality=sin) was correct. It was a long and prayerful study of the Scriptures that ultimately led me to the understanding that the conservative position was NOT SUPPORTED by Scripture.
I am not arguing against adultery, fornication, pedophilia, or bestiality: only homosexuality.
Rather, I am arguing that the Biblical arguments frequently made against homosexuality are FALSE.
Simply asserting that I am trying to "rationalize away" Biblical injunctions against immorality doesn't make it so. Nor does it disprove the argument.
Blessings to you my brother in Christ,
Ken+
2 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Hi All,
Since we are trying to have a logical argument here, it might be helpful to review some of the most frequent fallacies in logical argumentation. The following is a list from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (http://carm.org/logical-fallacies-or-fallacies-argumentation).
Blessings,
Ken+
AD HOMINEM - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
APPEAL TO FORCE - Telling the hearer that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.
APPEAL TO PITY - Urging the hearer to accept the argument based upon an appeal
APPEAL TO THE POPULAR - Urging the hearer to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.
APPEAL TO TRADITION - Trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (BEGGING THE QUESTION) - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.
CAUSE AND EFFECT - Assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.
FALLACY OF DIVISION - Assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.
FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION - Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.
FALSE DILEMMA - Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices possible.
GENETIC FALLACY - Attempting to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim.
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone whom is disliked by another.
NON SEQUITUR - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.
POISONING THE WELL - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
RED HERRING - Introducing a topic not related to the subject at hand.
SPECIAL PLEADING (DOUBLE STANDARD) - Applying a standard to another that is different from a standard applied to oneself.
STRAW MAN ARGUMENT - Producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and attacking it.
CATEGORY ERROR - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property. Attributing facts of one kind are attributed to another kind. Attributing to one category that which can only be properly attributed to another.
2 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
Alas, I think that Scott Elliot's assessment is correct. Looking back over the list of Fallicies in Logical Argumentation I just posted, I realized that 90% of of the responses I was getting fell into one of the above categories of logical fallacies. In other words, we are playing by different rules. And that won't get us anywhere.
So I will leave the above list as my final contribution to this thread, and bid everyone farewell.
If someone would like to engage with me personally on this. I will happily respond. Just send me a private message and and i will respond in the same manner.
2 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Ken Howard,
These rigmaroles are not important here.
Since you have recognised things (like logic) follows some standard rule and is not subject to personal vagaries, it is then easy to let you know that you have failed to apply any biblical rule of literary interpretation in this discussion. Why do you talk about some rules now when you have always maintained that there are no standard rules in biblical interpretation but free-for-all incongruously individualised variableness.
Anyway, the point in this discussion is that those who say homosexuality is no sin are in error and cannot make their case from the Bible.
You have not even made any logical case yet, let alone prove anything yet. I've tried to goad and help you make your point even rationalise but your rigmarole muddling approach to issues has not allowed you make any logical headway on any verse of the Scripture. Hope you could see the problem.
By the way, what is your categorisation of your mode of approach to the Scripture?
2 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Scott Elliot,
I share your concern and frustration, but I think that the problem is that the Church can no longer distinguish itself or herself from the society, with the result that we have abandoned or lost sight of our rules for those of the society. We must know who we are, else we lose our identity.
We (the Church) are not the world nor are we like the world. Never forget that. The Church is meant to be Biblical or Christian but the world is heathenish in its passion, purpose, philosophy and principles. And the world should never tell the Church how to discuss its faith inside the Church. We are not in search of what to believe or philosophies to hold. The Scriptures is our authoritative rule and guide and we have no apologies whatsoever. We are a voluntary revolutionary body.
In the society we dialogue as St Paul did in Athenian Areopagus without planting any known church there. But in the Church we judge, refute, teach, correct, reproof, instruct and even excommunicate against anything unapostolic or unscriptural. See these apostolic examples:
Titus 1:9-11
(9) Holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to refute the opposition.
(10) For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision:
(11) Whose mouths must be stopped, who ruin whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for dishonest gain.
1Corinthians 5:9-13
(9) I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
(10) Yet not entirely with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must you needs go out of the world.
(11) But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no not to eat.
(12) For what have I to do to judge them also that are outside? do not you judge them that are within?
(13) But them that are outside God judges. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
2 days ago
• Like
Follow Ken
Ken Howard • Goodbye Ifechukwu,
For one person to talk to another person who is not listening wastes both their time (cf. Mk 18:8, Rom 11:8). And so I am am pulling out of this discussion group.
If at some point, you would like to have an actual conversation on this issue (i.e., treating your "opponent" with respect, listening carefully to what your "opponent" is saying, responding to what your "opponent" is actually saying rather than twisting it into a "straw man," and responding with a spirit of love, rather than with scorn, derision, and ad hominem attacks), please reply to me privately and I will happy respond.
Meanwhile, I will keep you in my prayers.
In Christ's love,
Ken+
2 days ago
• Like
Follow Lee
Lee Walker • Ifechukwu, you keep asking for an exegisis of the Biblical passages. Two books are currently available on amazon.com in both paperback and downloadable electronic book format. The books are: 1) "The Moral Teaching of Paul" (1979) by Victor Paul Furbish who was a professor at Perkins Theological at Southern Methodist University (Dallas,Texas) when he wrote it. Don't skip chapter one which outlines the Early Church’s understanding of the authority and origins of Scripture in the Church. The whole book is built on chapter one; 2) "Dirt, Greed, and Sex; Sexual Ethics In The New Testament And Their Implications For Today" by Countryman (1988). Despite it's unfortunately sensationalist title (which sounds like something the publisher's marketing department dreamed up!), the book is a very heavily academic work.
You seem mistakenly to think that people such as Ken and myself choose to ignore God's clear commands and substitute instead any outrageous laws of our own creating. Not at all. Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean that we do so in an attempt to spit in the Face of Christ or to profane Biblical teaching. With all due respect, I disagree with you because I think your teaching in this matter is secular in origin, encourages sin, dehumanizes and degrades Human nature, and is contrary to the Will of God. I am as equally horrified and aghast at your position as you evidently are at mine. It is my opinion that your entire theology of the Bible (from what little of it that I have seen in this forum) is defective and far removed from that of the Early Church. I believe from the bottom of my heart that your message on what the Bible teaches about homosexuality destroys Human lives, leads to death and despair, and is contrary to everything for which the Gospel stands. And yet, I have not, to the best of my knowledge, spoken hatefully or disrespectfully to you in this forum or anywhere else. I have not denied that you seek Christ and His service. I have not denied that you have a relationship with the Risen Lord. I have not condemned you as defective in every aspect of your life and faith because of what I truly believe to be your sin in this one aspect. I find it so sad that, apparently, your understanding of the Gospel has prevented you from dealing with me and Ken in the same manner.
When St. Paul proclaimed the Gospel to the Pagans, he took the time to know them, to learn of their philosophers, their ways and perspectives. He engaged them personally. That doesn’t mean he embraced Paganism. It meant that Paul had enough respect and love for the Pagans as fellow Human Beings and fellow Children of God to take the time to learn to “speak their language” so that he could more effectively proclaim the Good News to them. Paul had the humility to see that there was good in the Pagans, good sustained by the Holy Spirit they didn't even know. By knowing them at that deep and personal level, he could reach their hearts in a way that I can assure you that you have not reached mine.
My brother, you have revealed a great deal of your heart in this forum. So have I and so have Ken and others. I walk away from this forum knowing you in a way that makes me feel at least a little connected to you. It is my opinion that you walk away with no knowledge of me whatsoever, but with only a cartoon stereotype of me which is of your own creation and which exists nowhere except in your mind. This was a chance to grow closer to a brother in Christ and you missed it. Look to the example of St. Paul! Look to the example of Jesus Who socialized with sinners and came to know them as friends so that they would open their hearts to him. I am so very sorry that you missed this great opportunity which Christ offered you in this forum. I pray you will not continue to miss it when next He offers it. May the Holy One of Israel (Blessed be God's Name forever!!) bless you and your ministry with Holy Stillness and with Peace, James Lee Walker +
2 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Lee Walker,
First my intension is to speak loud and clear what the Scriptures say without inflections of western paganism. I do not seek to be heard in such ways as you think or approve but in line with apostolic thinking and example:.
1Corinthians 1:18-25
(18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God.
(19) For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
(20) Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
(21) For since in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
(22) For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
(23) But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
(24) But unto them who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
(25) Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Corinthians 2:1-6
(1) And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
(2) For I determined not to know anything among you, except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
(3) And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
(4) And my speech and my preaching were not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
(5) That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
(6) But we speak wisdom among them that are mature: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nothing:
Your fancifully imagined but scripturally unfounded description of St Paul does not tally up with any of his writings or dealing with issues IN THE CHURCH. Or could you furnish me with some? You read so much of many books but seem to abhor the writings of the Scriptures (wish I'm wrong on this though). Apart from the portions I've already cited from his writings, here are some suggestions and let me know your take on them:
1Corinthians 5:1-7
(1) It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
(2) And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that has done this deed might be taken away from among you.
(3) For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that has so done this deed,
(4) In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
(5) To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
(6) Your glorying is not good. Know you not that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?
(7) Purge out therefore the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, as you are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
2Corinthians 4:1-4
(1) Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
(2) But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
(3) But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
(4) In whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of them who believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
2 days ago
• Like
Follow Lee
Lee Walker • Ifechukwu, you're just repeating what you already said over and over. Read the two books I recommended and educate yourself. All that you are asking me its in those books.
2 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Scott
Scott Elliott • Well, QED I guess, I am very sorry to say. Even when the door is flung wide open, the willingness -- or is it ability? -- to engage in real dialogue (much less fair argument) seems pretty much entirely absent, and without the merest shred of self-awareness.
This debacle has helped me to understand the conflicts of the last 10 years or so within the Anglican Communion (and, to a lesser extent, within my own beloved Episcopal Church) in a way and to a depth nothing else has. For that I am grateful, I suppose, but, now that the annoyance and frustration have subsided, the strongest feeling I have is -- sadness.
If the communication between ourselves, or lack thereof, or even lack of sincere, honest attempts thereof, is as lacking as this thread as demonstrated, I really mourn for the Anglican Communion's ability and willingness to do even begin the work God has placed us in the world to do.
May God help us all, and, on the Last Day, forgive us.
2 days ago
• Like
2
Follow Lee
Lee Walker • Scott, I hope your pessimistic view of the Anglican Communion's ability to deal with this issue was said with a bit of hyperbole. Remember that "one issue" online forums such as this one tend to attract people who are very passionate about and even entrenched in their particular perspectives. I am certainly guilty of being one of those, although I pray that my presence here also gains me insight into those who differ from me. I have listened to and observed all manner of data and experience and perspective on this issue for about 55 of my 64 years on the planet. Yes, much of what I heard and saw from the self professed Christian adults as I was a child trying to grow in the Lord terrified and tortured me. The harm and cruelty done to gay children who are brainwashed like that and then left with no one with whom to talk is beyond description. Even so, I have been amazed at how civil and constructive the conversations I have witnessed in various (American) Episcopal conventions, committees, parishes, and other venues have been. The same is true in a rapidly growing number of places in the Communion. While our Anglican leadership is far from perfect, I am often awed at the quality of people of all views whom I encounter at diocesan conventions, General Convention, vestry meetings, weekend retreats, and so very often at coffee hour, etc. I have great faith in the bishops that serve the Communion. But I'm not a naieve “bishop groupie.” I realized that some of them are jerks and some are heretics. But even the jerk heretics have some glimmer of the Light of Christ in them! The best way to remove the bad is not by endlessly condemning and judging it in passionate speeches, but by building on the good so that it pushes the bad out or transforms it. I say this as a priest who has served with great enthusiasm under bishops in dioceses that represent a broad spectrum of views on this issue. I speak of the dioceses of Ft. Worth, New York, Connecticut, Bethlehem (PA), Los Angeles, and Bangor (Wales, The UK). In the late Nineties, I arranged for the now retired Bishop of Mt. Kilimanjaro (Africa) and his wife, friends whom I met on a parish trip to Africa, to come be resident in our Connecticut parish for a three month sabbatical during which time he worked among us a parish curate. I did this after that bishop made clear that he would not allow me to function as a priest in his diocese should I visit there again because I am gay. Several years later, he came as a guest for a weekend at the parish where I was a curate in Huntington Beach, California. When he preached at Mass, he told the congregation that while he has very different views on some important social issues from most of us in America, he sees that our common family life in Christ outweighs all other considerations. He said he was so glad to be able to see the Christ in those with whom he disagrees. Like me, he doesn't view his brothers and sisters in Christ as being divided into groups according to who they are and what they believe on every issue. Like me, he sees us as members of one family with God as our Father. You can scream at family and hit them and do all sorts of things to them, but they are still family. Like me, he knows that family fights are best settled at the family table and not in a boxing ring. And let us all say, "AMEN!"
Before I die, I pray I see him and his wonderful wife again.
I trust you were't as serious as you sounded in your post. I am so encouraged by all the souls I see turning to Jesus Christ in parishes that hold the highest moral standards . . . . and hold themselves before God as ALL being sinners in need of healing. The Anglican Communion as she listens to the Spirit and as she follows the Christ is something far greater and far larger than LINKEDIN . . . . or any one forum contained in little ol' LINKEDIN :-) .
2 days ago
• Like
1
Follow Neil
Neil Bryson • Of course nobody wants to be deceived - and Ifechukwu thinks anyone who disagrees with his hermeneutic (and I think that's all it is - not exegesis) is grossly deceived. He is obviously passionate about Jesus, which is great. What he is missing here is a chance at empathy with his brothers and sisters who disagree with him. I find that jolly sad, to be honest. If pastoring people consists of hectoring and badgering them with Bible verses, then it will never reach those who need the touch of the Holy and Anointed One, who said that He had not come into the world to condemn it, but to save it (John 3).
Perhaps wherever Ifechukwu lives, a message of hellfire and damnation, of judgment and condemnation, is just the ticket for winning people to Christ. In the UK, it will have the opposite effect. This is because people think you are attacking them, their integrity, who they are at their core; what wins them to our Blessed Lord is hearing His welcome voice and feeling His amazing love, grace and acceptance. As they yield their allegiance to Jesus, the King of kings, the Holy Spirit begins at once His work of sanctifying, of changing their attitudes and desires, and causing Jesus' redeeming Precious Blood to cleanse each spot of sin. It is the Spirit-filled person whose conscience informs them what is wrong, who is drawn to the Bible and hears the voice of the Good Shepherd who promises that, as His sheep, they will recognize His voice and not follow a stranger.
Ifechukwu, you need to trust that the Holy Spirit will do His work at His own pace in the hearts of your fellow-Christians, including those with whom you have disagreed on this forum. Be gracious to them and unconditionally loving, without a word of condemnation, and you will find that you stop being concerned about things that are not your responsibility, but that of God the Holy Spirit. God is faithful, who also will do it.
2 days ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • My Brothers and Sisters,
I think we still mis one point. Oil is not water. Light is not darkness. Old wine is not new wine. The Church is not the world.
Biblical Christianity is not heathenish modernity. Agreeing or disagreeing is not the issue here but giving the Apostolic witness its pervading and prime place in the Church which we did not found.
I would wish that Neil Bryson’s optimism were true, but this has not met with any reality nor has it any biblical support that people who reject the authority of God’s Word gradually grow in sanctification by the Holy Spirit. How could that be? That is why the Holy Spirit is delivering and transforming only former homosexuals that accepted that their condition needed divine intervention while those who reject the Scriptures say such deliverance from homosexuality is bondage rather? The Apostle thought differently. Rejecting biblical authority is synonymous with delusion, deception and destruction even if we love them with all the types of love they could demand.
2Thessalonians 2:10-12
(10) And with all deception of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
(11) And for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
(12) That they all might be condemned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
If what people are advancing here and elsewhere especially for the Western heathenish civilisation is anything to go by, then the Church in the West has totally derailed and lost its identity, courage and worth such that it has entirely become worse than the world and swallowed up or trampled by the heathens. The Church has not only grieved the Holy Spirit but even quenched Him. Yet they pretend to pay Him lip service. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Truth not the Spirit of philosophy.
You don't do Bible exegesis and hermeneutics with heathen relativist principles, sophist dialectic or even “areopagus” apologetics (which is mere dialogue with the world without advancing biblical authority) as some wish I should do here. The Scripture of the Kingdom is not like the philosophy of the heathens. The Apostles were clear on these but we think we know better and yet we have not performed better than they.
Many seem to strangely think that the Church should rather grope in daylight and walk in darkness! Not so my brethren. The Church is the light and the world is darkness. In darkness you grope and revise and change direction as you try to feel after God and falsehood. In the light those regenerated and recreated see the way and footprints by the regenerating Holy Spirit and the Scriptures of the Apostles and the Prophets with Christ as the living Word.
It is noteworthy that most of these foundational forebears of the Church were all in confrontation and contradiction against the vile heathenish world of their generation so much so that the world killed, stoned and crucified them. Can any of these false ideas some peddle today in the name of Church produce such conflict or lead to such end in the vile world of today?
Shalom.
1 day ago
• Like
Follow Neil
Neil Bryson • Ifechukwu, where did I write that you can reject the Scriptures and still be led by the Holy Spirit?
23 hours ago
• Like
Follow Ifechukwu
Ifechukwu Ibeme • Neil,
I only agreed with you that Holy Spirit leads but pointed out that being led by the Holy Spirit in not usually available without commitment to the authority of Biblical Witness.
|
|
Notes.io is a web-based application for taking notes. You can take your notes and share with others people. If you like taking long notes, notes.io is designed for you. To date, over 8,000,000,000 notes created and continuing...
With notes.io;
- * You can take a note from anywhere and any device with internet connection.
- * You can share the notes in social platforms (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, instagram etc.).
- * You can quickly share your contents without website, blog and e-mail.
- * You don't need to create any Account to share a note. As you wish you can use quick, easy and best shortened notes with sms, websites, e-mail, or messaging services (WhatsApp, iMessage, Telegram, Signal).
- * Notes.io has fabulous infrastructure design for a short link and allows you to share the note as an easy and understandable link.
Fast: Notes.io is built for speed and performance. You can take a notes quickly and browse your archive.
Easy: Notes.io doesn’t require installation. Just write and share note!
Short: Notes.io’s url just 8 character. You’ll get shorten link of your note when you want to share. (Ex: notes.io/q )
Free: Notes.io works for 12 years and has been free since the day it was started.
You immediately create your first note and start sharing with the ones you wish. If you want to contact us, you can use the following communication channels;
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: http://twitter.com/notesio
Instagram: http://instagram.com/notes.io
Facebook: http://facebook.com/notesio
Regards;
Notes.io Team
