Can Homosexuals Be Christian?
I have been asked this quite a few times over the years and the issue was brought up again recently. Can homosexuals be Christians? Or, better, is there such a thing as a “homosexual Christian.” Many would believe that someone who engages in a homosexual life style is necessarily excluded from the Kingdom of God unless they repent. Repentance here would mean a change of thinking about and, shortly following, action to change this lifestyle. In other words, while some would be willing to say that a homosexual can be saved, their salvation guarantees their change of lifestyle within a short period of time.
While I agree with those who say that homosexuality is a terrible sin (Lev. 18:22, 20:13 Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:6; 1 Tim. 1:10), I do not believe it is one that is outside the realm of a believer’s carnality. Neither do I believe that if one practices in homosexuality their entire life that they are necessarily excluded from the Kingdom of God. I hope that people do not misunderstand my purpose here. I, in no way endorse homosexual behavior or seek to relativise its abominable standing before the Lord. But I do think that we who are not tempted in such a way often fail to see the seriousness of the struggle that people go through who engage in this sin.
Sexual sin and temptation is part of everyone’s life. We are born with a drive toward fulfillment of this God-given part of our humanity. Some will deny this drive because of God’s calling in their lives (e.g. singleness). Yet sin has corrupted this drive and we are all born infected with sin. Because of upbringing, genetics, cultural influences, and other factors, people will experience this corruption to greater and lesser degrees. I personally have never felt any inclination toward expressing my sexual corruption in a way that was focused on the same sex. Why? Not necessarily because of good choices I have made, but because the genetics, upbringing, and influences were not there. I have just never had that sinful bent within me that compels me to lust after someone of the same sex. Don’t get me wrong. I have a sinful sexual bent, but it is of the more natural kind. This does not justify it or make me more innately righteous than the homosexual, it is just a fact that this is not a sin that I have ever had to deal with.
I thank God that this is the case because I know that whatever sinful bent I have it will get the better of me sometime. It is just the way it goes living with corruption. I also know that I will not be alleviated of my bents until the restoration of my body at the resurrection. I just have to do whatever I can to master it until then. And as the U2 song goes, “some days are better than others.” I can identify with sinners because I am one. I can identify with those who have a bent, because I have one (many actually). Therefore, when I see someone giving in to the bent of homosexuality, I am saddened. My heart goes out to them because their problem is essentially the same as mine. We have a corrupted nature that causes us to give in to our bents.
Now, back to the question of the hour. Can homosexuals be Christians? This is really a theological question that evidences a lack of understanding about sin and redemption. It reveals a major misconception about the nature of sin, placing homosexuality in its own category because of its depraved nature. While I do believe that homosexuality is a worse sin than many others (that is right, not all sins are equal like some would have us believe), I don’t believe that those who have that bent should be seen differently than others.
We could ask the question this way: Can people who have sinful bents be Christians? Of course. Who else can be? Christ was the only one that did not have a sinful bent. Okay then, how about this: Can people who have really bad sinful bents be Christians? Again, the only biblical answer is yes. People who have really bad sinful bents can be Christians. Really, the question that is being asked is this: Can sinners be Christians? Again, I say, is there any other kind?
Some would respond and say that while they are willing to concede that homosexuals can be Christians, they must be in the process of overcoming this sinful behavior. In other words, they must have consistent and perpetual victory over this bent. Hold on there. While I agree that homosexuals can and many times do have victory over this bent to the point where they redeem themselves completely from this lifestyle, I don’t necessarily think that this is always going to happen. I would say that in my life there are some bents that I feel I have had victory over, and some that remain as a nagging persistent web. This web is one of deception and destruction that can easily trip us up. Listen to the writer of the book of Hebrews:
“Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith” (Hebrews 12:1-2).
The writer of Hebrews says that it is “easy” to get entangled in this web. The passage warns of the ten euperistaton hamartian–literally, “the easy ensnaring sin.” I believe that the primary referent for “the easily ensnaring sin” is the sin of unbelief (the subject of the book), but this sin of unbelief expresses itself in the sin of the hour. In other words, the sin of unbelief leads forth to our practicing of our particular bent. Most importantly, it is “easy” to fall into this.
Again, while I agree that homosexuals can and should be overcoming this sin, it could be the case that they have become entangled in it. This entanglement may be the very acts of homosexuality or it might be the plight of struggling with it until redemption. It is no different for those of us who are not bent toward a homosexual lifestyle. Some of our most serious bents may plague us, literally, until Kingdom come.
Many refer to Paul admonishing the Corinthians to look back to their victory over sin, implying that they did not practice such things any longer or were completely delivered from them. One of these sins is homosexuality.
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
While this seems straight forward upon a cursory reading, I don’t believe that it supports the case that homosexuals can’t be Christians for two primary reasons. First, the people to whom Paul was writing were sinners and were in the process of being rebuked by Paul. Notice here just three chapters back:
“And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?” (1 Cor. 3:1-3).
They were fleshly. The sins described in 6:9-10 are fleshly sins. This means that the Corinthians were not necessarily doing well. Yet Paul says they were washed and sanctified. Now either Paul has a slight case of amnesia or we have to understand 6:9-11 differently which brings me to the second reason I believe that this passage cannot be used in support of the person who says homosexuals cannot be Christians. Paul identifies Christians with Christ, not with their sinful disposition. In Pauline thought, people who are clothed in Christ’s righteousness are no longer named according to their sinful bent, even if that bent may continue to entangle them. The Corinthians were entangled in their bents to be sure, but Paul sees them through the righteousness of Christ. This is why Paul could say “such were some of you.” This does not make their sinfulness any less severe, but it does say that Christ’s redemption, in Pauline theology, has redeemed the sinner, while still in a sinning state. Those without the covering of Christ’s righteousness are still identified with their sin in the eyes of God. Therefore, understanding this context, it is true, fornicators, thieves, covetous, homosexuals and all unrighteous people (those not covered by Christ’s righteousness) will not inherit the Kingdom of God. But thankfully, we have been covered by His righteousness and set apart, even though we are still sinners.
One more thing. I often hear this concession: While I believe that homosexuals can be saved, they cannot believe that homosexuality is approved by God or attempt to justify their sin. While I understand and agree with this to some degree, I still hold back and say that this is not always the case. We all have ways of justifying our bents, whatever they may be. Sometimes we minimize their seriousness, while other times we outright deny them. It is also often the case that we just do not ever deal with them. Peter lived twelve years after the resurrection of Christ justifying his belief that Jews were better than Gentiles. He lived twelve years after becoming a Christian believing that he, by virtue of being a Jew, was so much better than Gentiles that he would not even set foot in their house. Speaking to the Gentile Cornelius and his family, he said, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean” (Acts 10:28). What if Peter had died in year eleven? He would have died living his entire Christian life as a prideful racist. Racism is spoken of more in the New Testament as a mark of ungodliness than homosexuality. Therefore, while I believe that the conviction of the Holy Spirit should be there and it should change our hearts, we have this uncanny bent to justify our sinfulness to ourselves and to others or to just ignore it.
Having said all this, we all need to recognize the utter sinfulness of sexual perversion. Homosexuality is a sin, and a terribly destructive one at that. But we need to be careful and gracious with those who struggle with this sin, understanding that the struggle against sin is in the plight of us all. The solution is for us to be non-compromising to the political correct agenda of our culture to turn all sin into a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice, but at the same time to be gracious, knowing that the only hope that anyone has is to be covered in Christ’s righteousness, not our own.
Can a homosexual be Christian. Yes. All sinners can be Christians. Indeed, all Christians are sinners. Let us all view this important issue in light of a deep understanding of the plight of sinfulness and may God help us to overcome the resulting bents.
“Sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it” (Genesis 4:7).
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!- Observations that I have learned from “My Life”
- The Future of Justification: A Review (Part 2)
- Are we Condemned for the Sin of Another? (Part 3)
- Where I stand on all things 3
- How Sinful Can a Christian Be?
Print This Post

Jermayn on 04 Jan 2010 at 2:18 am #
Like how you focus on Gods grace and through the path of salvation, they can be saved…
Too many times, people focus on the sin and not the heart, like you mentioned.
Leslie on 04 Jan 2010 at 2:38 am #
Yet another gracious, balanced post, Michael!
Eric on 04 Jan 2010 at 6:05 am #
Thank you Michael for in those paragraphs. You have demonstrated again your consistent theological thoughts especially the essentials and nonessentials, love, grace,charity.
If I may add a comment. Yes, we are all sinners. Like I tell my friends, colleagues, students in Bible class we must TURN AWAY from our SIN. Make a conscious effect and open our life to the Holy Spirit and if and when we fall God is there to ‘lend us a hand’ so that we can continue in fellowship with HIM.
Blessings
rick on 04 Jan 2010 at 6:22 am #
I need to reread a few times; my initial reaction is (1) I agree and think the perspective you share is healthy for the person relating to those tempted by homosexuality but (2) this is not what we or the Bible teach to the homosexual. Rather we teach that sin is of the old nature and we spur others on toward life in the new nature.
That is, I like what you say as a warning to those who spur others on in an unhealthy way but too many are taking this teaching to the homosexual to alleviate the guilt and the emptiness found in sin. Or worse, some teach this (or go a step further saying it’s not sin) to the sinner as part of their disdain of the church for the ugliness we’ve demonstrated or as part of their own inability to experience victory over sin. All understandable but not reason to deviate from the bottom line that homosexuality is sin and as any sin, must be overcome by grace.
Matt on 04 Jan 2010 at 6:22 am #
Thanks Michael for presenting what I think is a very balanced post on such a controversial topic. Another great read on P&P!
Del on 04 Jan 2010 at 6:26 am #
I think the biggest difficulty I have in wrestling with the issue of the sinfulness of homosexuality is that it doesn’t seem, well, sinful. By that I mean the few homosexuals I know (I’m happily heterosexual) aren’t murdering, raping and stealing (the bad sins). They seem as happy as many married couples I know and it’s difficult for me to condemn their practices if they’re not harming anyone else. Maybe they’re not as happy as they appear? Or we can be happy in our sinfulness?
rick on 04 Jan 2010 at 6:47 am #
Del – I found your comment interesting. I get your point but I was thinking the opposite because I haven’t had any one practice those “other” sins in front of me and say they were ok. Homosexuality is different not only in the general stuff going on in society to say it is ok but there’s the practical issues of what do I do about a close relative bringing their partner around or the gay couple who want to be part of our small group, etc…
I want to be open, loving, kind, etc. but the sin is in full display in front of me at a personal level.
Jonathan A. on 04 Jan 2010 at 7:43 am #
“I have a sinful sexual bent, but it is of the more natural kind.”
I don’t know how to better express this, but as someone who has struggled a good portion of his life with Same-Sex-Attraction, and trying to honor God through a denial of my flesh I would suggest that phrases like this are what lend a lot of unnecessary shame to people who are trying to honor God and may in fact not have sinned in that arena yet.
While every area of our lives is marred by the sinfulness of the fall, thinking in terms of natural vs un-natural sins may be prudent. I do agree that sins are not all of the same consequence or are ‘not equal’ but we all merit the same ‘guilty verdict’ from God without his Son stepping in on our behalf.
Thabiti on 04 Jan 2010 at 9:14 am #
Brother,
Thanks for a thoughtful post. How do you address Romans 1:32 and 1 Thess. 4 which appear to teach that wrath is visited on those who “practice such things”?
Being helped by your thoughts,
T-
Jesse G on 04 Jan 2010 at 9:34 am #
Jonathan,
I understand the sentiment of your post. . . but in saying that his sin is of the “natural kind” Michael is simply using the language of Romans 1:26-27. Sexual relations between men and women are “natural” because that is how God created us to work. Same sex relations are “unnatural” because they go against God’s created order. I don’t know that we should shy away from biblical language, especially in conversation with other believers.
Kay on 04 Jan 2010 at 9:37 am #
Let me ask you to post this same comment using the adulterer and the other sexual sins. They all have a sexual bent that they say is the way they were born; that they are not hurting anyone; that if love is in it it can not be bad, after all God is Love.
I agree with Rick that the only reason that the homosexual behavior is being singled out is that they put their behavior out there and state that we are the same as you.
In the first chapter of Romans it states that homosexual behavior is an abomination to God and he turns his back on them and and leaves them to their sins. Is their another sin that it states that God turns his back on you for continuing to commit?
This does not mean that we beat them up or kill them. We are to show them God’s love but we do not pat them on the back and tell them that they are covered with Jesus blood and they will be ok.
The bible also says that the ones who condone the sinful behavior will be corrupted by it also and suffer judgment for it.
Kay on 04 Jan 2010 at 9:38 am #
God
C Skiles on 04 Jan 2010 at 9:47 am #
Michael, great post. As usual , balanced, biblical and understanding. Loving the sinner. Hating the sin. So often we say this and yet we hate both the sin & the sinner. And the heart of God I believe is broken.
Del, I see your point. But, if we are to honor God’s word we are forced to call this sin what it is… an abomination beford God. And yet, how conviently we forget the other sins that are listed as abominations beford God. I think Satan loves it when we obsess over the sins of others and ignore our own sinful bents.
So often there is a gigantic plank sticking out of my eye and yet I fail to look in the mirror.
Angela on 04 Jan 2010 at 9:50 am #
I think Jonathan A. is a good example of the difference between a saved sinner and a unsaved sinner. He expressed he’s “struggling” , there’s a heart difference between struggling with a sin and embracing it. A struggle shows a conviction of sin and evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Eclectic Christian on 04 Jan 2010 at 10:08 am #
Before responding, try substituting the word “obese” in for the word “homosexual”. Are they similar sins? Look at what Ezekiel said about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Ezekiel 16:49-50 – “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”
Can fat people be Christians? Or is their ongoing gluttony something that needs to be repented of first?
Hodge on 04 Jan 2010 at 11:18 am #
I think you ought to be careful, Michael. The world is praising you. Homosexuality isn’t like “other sins.” Paul specifically says that sexual immorality is a different type of sin. It is a sin against other and the self. It is a sin that seeks to reverse creation itself. So, No, I’m not going to substitute obesity or running red lights for it.
Having said that, the other issue I would take with your post is that it assumes a “repentantless” grace, or a scheme of sanctification that allows one to remain in willful unrepentant sin. What is the difference between someone in the world practicing homosexuality and someone in the Church? They believe something different about Christ? Your appeal to our fallen nature is the same thing to which the heretics in 2 Peter appeal. I’m wondering if you would say the same thing for murderers here? Is it OK to perpetually murder as long as I believe in Jesus as my savior? Sexual immorality falls under the same category as murder in Scripture, even though our generation doesn’t get that.
Instead, Paul is clear not only to say that “so were some of you,” but that those who practice such things will not enter the kingdom of God. Notice the contrast is not that they were once sinners and now they are not, but that they practiced such things and now they were washed from practicing them. He’s not saying that the Corinthians are sinless. He’s saying that their practices have changed. He states this same thing in Ephesians: “For this you know with certainty, that no sexually immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.”
I’m not saying a person can’t struggle, but the kicker for me was when you said that one could habitually practice it and not even acknowledge that it was a sin. I don’t see this as true for any sin, especially the bigger ones. Rebellion coupled with a void of the Spirit toward the Word of God does not a Christian make.
So I see these assumptions in your post: falleness allows for any sin to be practiced habitually, grace is given apart from repentance, all sins are of the same caliber, and homosexuality is to be viewed as acceptable in practice, but to be verbally declared as evil, or at least, not what is the best. Here’s my final question then: “Why would Paul tell the Corinthians to have nothing to do with a so-called believer who practiced this if they were still Christians in good standing with God?
Kent S on 04 Jan 2010 at 11:21 am #
Thanks for the post. The church needs this conversation. Here are a few of my thoughts.
I have often thought that if Jesus were alive today, homosexuals would be one group of “sinners” that he would hang out with. On the other hand, what about the practical problem of how a biblical worshiping community reaches out to the gay community? Do we invite unrepentant gay couples to our church services? If not, how will they learn about the hope of healing through Jesus?
If we do though, how that might that affect our children? They will see that gay people are interesting, loving people whose struggle to “come out” has often made them very honest and sincere. In some ways I think there are good things we can learn from gays. They will challenge our comfortable preconceived notions of gays. Some may appear more attractive than many of the straitlaced “righteous” church goers. However, I think, we need not be afraid if we bring their lifestyle into the light both compassionately and non-dogmatically.
In reality, we know that gender confusion is more than a sin. It is not genetic. it is not natural. It is a belief about ones self that is influenced and shaped by many factors including the acceptance of the gay lifestyle in society. I think we are justified to be concerned about how the gay community influences what vulnerable youth believe about themselves just as they begin to develop sexual awareness. Once a young person starts seeing themselves as gay, it cannot just be willed away.
Homosexuality is not healthy, mentally or physically. One bit of evidence is that homosexuals are more likely than heteros to have psychological issues (even after controlling for factors such as social stigma). This points to the deep heart roots of the problem.
As Christians we need to support the work of groups attempting to make
homosexual reparative therapy, such as NARTH (www.narth.com), a recognized healing option in the medical community.
So compassion and telling the truth, healing and repentance, prevention and intervention are all necessary components of responding to this epidemic affecting our society.
Hodge on 04 Jan 2010 at 11:22 am #
BTW, is it simply the fact that a person is deceived when they don’t believe God’s rebuke that affords them immunity to the condemnation of that rebuke?
Nick Norelli on 04 Jan 2010 at 12:02 pm #
Eclectic Christian: Why do you equate obesity and gluttony? There are a number of reasons for obesity that have nothing to do with gluttony. And there are a number of gluttons who aren’t obese.
Hodge on 04 Jan 2010 at 12:04 pm #
Ezekiel 16:49-50 – “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”
In other words, they didn’t perpetuate and preserve human creation/life, which is the same sin they were committing in a different form when the angels got there. This is why God came down to destroy it. The sin they committed while the angels were there is simply an extension of this one.
davidbmc on 04 Jan 2010 at 12:59 pm #
With the exception of eschatology I have never agreed with someone’s blog more. It scares me a little.
dm
Richard on 04 Jan 2010 at 1:22 pm #
I see this whole issue from the perspective of someone called out of homosexuality to live a new and different life in Christ Jesus.
There are only two types of people in the world: sinners destined for hell and sinners destined for Heaven (aka saints).
To clearly discern who is and who is not a Christian is not an easy task. As Jesus spoke in the parables of the soils, there are some who appear to be Christian but when revealed by the difficulties of life struggles are not. The Lord said we will know true believers by their fruit . . . trouble is, we want to judge them now and not wait until they are mature.
As Christians we are new creations in Christ Jesus and yet with the sin nature still active in our lives. We still struggle with sin. Sin is still able to exercise its deceiving power over us. Whatever the flesh once manifested in our lives—some of the myriad forms of evil—we must remember is an area of weakness that needs to be guarded very carefully because, in an instant, we can return to the same sin no matter how long we have been Christians. True Christians mourn over this return to sin and turn back to God in repentance.
Thanks, Jermayn, for reminding us to see everyone as fallen away from God’s crowing act of creation and in need of a loving, gracious Savior. Good thing God demonstrated His love toward us, while we were yet sinners.
Del, I think God called us to be holy, to be set apart for His purpose and glory, rather than our personal happiness.
Eclectic Christian on 04 Jan 2010 at 1:42 pm #
@Nick,
Agreed that there is not a one to one correlation, and there are exceptions to the rule, but people use the exceptions to condone the general rule.
By the way, I am obese, and yes, it came from gluttony. I am however working to change that.
@Hodge,
Despite what I wrote earlier, I tend to agree with you on a number of points. John’s Epistles talk about the effect of persisting in sin.
But when you say that “homosexuality isn’t like other sins” I will draw your attention to the verse you quoted from 1 Cor 6.
“Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were.”
According to Paul, the sexually immoral and the greedy both have a significant problem. Unless we have new life in Christ and forsake the old ways we will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Jon Swales on 04 Jan 2010 at 2:17 pm #
You should delete this post as its embarrassing in that you do not clearly distuingish between homsexuality (orientation) and homosex (sexual act). Are you sayign that someone with a gay orientation is in sin. Surely not! yet you do not make this clear.
C. Barton on 04 Jan 2010 at 2:38 pm #
What really blows me away about God’s salvation plan is that when we are saved, we are forever delivered from God’s wrath! Sanctification, however, is a process, and we WILL meet with God’s discipline along the way. If you have a stubborn sin, He will have a powerful detergent, and He might require you to add some work to the cleanup.
Also, I think we sometimes overlook a subtle yet important (to me) part of the story of the Prodigal Son: he didn’t return to his family solely because he was sorry for his rebellion – he ran out of money!
Even so, his father welcomed him with tears in his eyes and love in his heart. And until we understand our Heavenly Father’s eternal love for us, we won’t quite understand how He can love us as sinners.
Hodge on 04 Jan 2010 at 2:48 pm #
Eclectic,
I agree with you in the sense that you’re referring. All sin separates from God, and all rebellion against God has devastating effects. My point is that Paul seems to indicate in v. 18 that sexual immorality is a different kind of sin than other types of sin; and as an “anti-creational” sin, it works more directly against what is God’s beneficial order for humanity. This delineation can be seen in the law. Death is the sentence for sexual immorality. A fine is the sentence for theft. It does seem clear by varying punishments, both in the OT and the NT, for sins that the weight of sins vary as well. My point was not in any way to diminish the seriousness of all of our situations. We are all sinners in need of grace, but the thrust of what I was saying is that grace comes through a repentant faith, with which I think most of us here would agree.
Kent S on 04 Jan 2010 at 3:04 pm #
Thanks for the post. The church needs this conversation. Here are a few of my thoughts.
I have often thought that if Jesus were alive today, homosexuals would be one group of “sinners” that he would hang out with. On the other hand, what about the practical problem of how a biblical worshiping community reaches out to the gay community? Do we invite unrepentant gay couples to our church services? If not, how will they learn about the hope of healing through Jesus?
If we do though, how might that that affect our children? They will see that gay people are interesting, loving people whose struggle to “come out” has often made them very honest and sincere. In some ways I think there are good things we can learn from gays. They will challenge our comfortable preconceived notions of gays. Some may appear more attractive than many of the straitlaced “righteous” church goers. However, I think, we need not be afraid if we bring their lifestyle into the light both compassionately and non-dogmatically.
In reality, we know that gender confusion is more than a sin. It is not genetic. it is not natural. It is a belief about ones self that is influenced and shaped by many factors including the acceptance of the gay lifestyle in society. I think we are justified to be concerned about how the gay community influences what vulnerable youth believe about themselves just as they begin to develop sexual awareness. Once a young person starts seeing themselves as gay, it cannot just be willed away.
Homosexuality is not healthy, mentally or physically. One bit of evidence is that homosexuals are more likely than heteros to have psychological issues (even after controlling for factors such as social stigma). This points to the deep heart roots of the problem.
As Christians we need to support the work of groups attempting to make
homosexual reparative therapy, such as NARTH (www.narth.com), a recognized healing option in the medical community.
So compassion and telling the truth, healing and repentance, prevention and intervention are all necessary components of responding to this epidemic affecting our society.
C. Barton on 04 Jan 2010 at 3:20 pm #
Also consider that there is a delineation between our internal condition and our external conduct. Our conduct towards others is one of the supreme concerns, as Christ said that after loving God with your best (when we are sincere about something, we sometimes say we put our heart in it; God want us to put our WHOLE heart in Him), you must love your neighbor as yourself.
Suppose, however, that Iam homosexual but do not conduct myself outwardly anymore in that way – am I different merely because I indulge in fantasy and not a real partner?
alexeyhurricane on 04 Jan 2010 at 3:27 pm #
i cant agree with that article , homosexual cant be christian , it is same as saying righteous man in old testament that practices homosexuality is righteous!
we are sinners , but there are different sins now when we became christians we do not sin as we used to , because we hate sin now!
thats difference , i can sin but sin is not intentional now ! when i wasnt christian i loved sin , when i become christian i hate sin!
therefore christian cant be homosexual! he is still slave to sin!
J.R. on 04 Jan 2010 at 3:34 pm #
Sin of a sexual nature; be it homosexual or heterosexual is a difficult vice to overcome. But to allow for one to believe one is more difficult than another, (hence it’s okay if you stumble once and awhile) is not being true to the word of God. All sin, no matter the type or cause separates us from God. To allow for excuses i.e., “upbringing, genetics, cultural influences, and other factors” lessons the responsibility of the one committing the sin.
Many within the homosexual community dismiss the notion that their lifestyle is a sinful lifestyle and at times seek excuses from the list CMP provides. Yet heterosexuals who commit a lifestyle of sexual sins do not necessarily reach for excuses, after all, its natural if one has a willing partner. How can one truly repent of something they believe not to be a sin? Allowing for excuses in lieu of the word of God further perpetuates the sin as now witnessed in certain denominations.
Can a homosexual be a Christian, maybe? But only to the same degree a heterosexual who suffers from sexual sins overcomes theirs; by the grace of God.
Gary Simmons on 04 Jan 2010 at 3:42 pm #
I’d like to note that the “Are all sins equal?” link doesn’t work.
Other than that, I’d like to second Jonathan A’s comment that the other sexual deviation is the “more natural kind.” As a heterosexual, it doesn’t directly affect me — I know you meant the more common kind. No sin is fully “natural” as in Genesis 1-2 natural, as I’m sure everyone here is aware.
But more generally: yes, a balanced and fair post. Thanks for your insight.
C Michael Patton on 04 Jan 2010 at 4:40 pm #
Sorry about the link. It is fixed.
Seems to be some good conversation going on here.
I have not had a chance to go through all the comments. I have been in meetings all day. I hope to be able to soon.
Mike B. on 04 Jan 2010 at 6:00 pm #
When I was younger I had a friend (my best friend at the time) who was struggling with homosexuality, and my reasoning with him was very similar to yours. We were teenagers at the time, and as I struggled with the usual sexual temptations that accompany adolescence, I tried to convince him that we were really in the same boat. “I am struggling to overcome heterosexual temptations, and you homosexual temptations, so let’s just try not to be sexually tempted at all.”
Now that I am married though, I realize how unhelpful and unsatisfactory that really was for him. A heterosexual man can at look at his sexual attracting to women, and while acknowledging that he needs to control and channel this through the right avenues, at least know that this attraction is something that God built into him for a useful purpose. A homosexual man cannot do this, at least if he wants his view to be Biblical directed.
And so he cannot help but feel that this is somehow in a different category than your or my temptation, that there is something constitutionally wrong about him, some deep perversion that goes to the core of who he is and which he seems powerless to change.
And it doesn’t help that he can’t seem to get a consistent answer from Christians who are trying to help him. Should be pray to God to change this constitution, to repair this perversion? If so, what is he to do if God does not answer his prayer? Is he just supposed to deal with it, struggle against it his whole life, live a life of celibacy? Did God build this into him with that in mind or is this just a desperate man’s only recourse. Should he get counseling? Should he just try to be straight, get married and try to make it work out for the best?
My friend eventually left the faith, and I almost don’t blame him. He never got any good answers for his questions. God never answered his desperate prayers to change and he could not understand why God would either make him this way or else leave him this way. What can you say to that?
I think that your response to this issue may be as good as anyone can do while trying to maintain a Biblical view, but I’m afraid that for many, it’s just not good enough.
anonymous on 04 Jan 2010 at 8:53 pm #
Let me describe two Christians both are Gay (or perhaps bisexual) and I have every reason to believe are (or were) God fearing:
One man fights the passions that he believes are sinful but occasionally falls to temptation. When he fails it is inevitably in cheep casual relationships of the most sorted type. After each affair he is overcome with guilt repents and promises God and Himself he will not fall again. Sadly he does again and again.
The Second Man accepted that his homosexuality was the result of a broken and fallen world where no mere human being could hope to be truly holy in the sight of God apart from Christ’s sacrificial blood. He determined to live a life of love and faithfulness to a man that he loves and try’s to be faithful to him.
I knew both of these men the first was my Uncle the Second was (for a brief time my Priest). The first man dead of Aids nearly 20 years ago he left a wife and three children behind and he was as an aside a pillar in his local Baptist Church.
The Second Man ministers to a small working class Anglo Catholic inner-city parish and is a chaplain at a local mental hospital. To this day he serves faithfully his partner, His church and his community.
Which of these men are the most faithfully Christian I once knew and am now no longer sure.
Nightraptor on 04 Jan 2010 at 9:47 pm #
Hodge,
Re: Post 16
Concerning repentance. I think if someone understood fully that homosexuality was a sin and basically said they didn’t care and were just going to keep living in sin because they knew better than God (which is essentially what they are saying) I think I might agree with you. However, most of the homosexuals who claim to be Christian’s I’ve come into contact with are either genuinely struggling with their “bent” or are simply not convinced that homosexuality is a sin. Now granted they have to do all sorts of hermeneutic and language tricks in order to skirt all the verses in the Bible which seem to address homosexuality, however some of them are genuinely (at least in my opinion) convinced that they are not sinning. How do we handle that? Is it possible for a Christian to be deceived concerning the righteousness of the manner in which they live, even to the point of thinking something that is sin is not sin, and still be a Christian? Or are Christians unable to be deceived on such an issue and as a corollary all deceived persons unsaved?
More Anonymous on 04 Jan 2010 at 10:14 pm #
Let me describe two Christians both are Pedofiles (or perhaps bisexual pedofiles) and I have every reason to believe are (or were) God fearing:
One man fights the passions that he believes are sinful but occasionally falls to temptation. When he fails it is inevitably in cheep casual relationships of the most sorted type. After each affair he is overcome with guilt repents and promises God and Himself he will not fall again. Sadly he does again and again.
The Second Man accepted that his pedofilia was the result of a broken and fallen world where no mere human being could hope to be truly holy in the sight of God apart from Christ’s sacrificial blood. He determined to live a life of love and faithfulness to a boy that he loves and try’s to be faithful to him.
I knew both of these men the first was my Uncle the Second was (for a brief time my Priest). The first man dead of Aids nearly 20 years ago he left a wife and three children behind and he was as an aside a pillar in his local Baptist Church.
The Second Man ministers to a small working class Anglo Catholic inner-city parish and is a chaplain at a local mental hospital. To this day he serves faithfully his child-partner, His church and his community.
Which of these men are the most faithfully Christian I once knew and am now no longer sure.
It’s a horrible story both ways, but it begs the question. Is it moral or immoral so that the individual cannot be God-fearing and practice it at the same time; and as an abomination, should it be stopped immediately at all costs? Rom 1 seems to indicate that there is a belief and truth issue involved within the whole thing, so that this isn’t simply a matter of someone overcoming it by itself, but it is connected to something else. Either way, these sort of argument through experience doesn’t help discover the nature of the issue. I’ve known plenty of pedofiles who could be caste in both roles above. They are real people with real problems and pain. This does not justify their remaining in their sin.
Rev. J on 04 Jan 2010 at 10:24 pm #
“Neither do I believe that if one practices in homosexuality their entire life that they are necessarily excluded from the Kingdom of God.”
Whatever happened to repenting and turning from our evil ways? Yes, all sinners can become saints, but one cannot continue to “practice” that which is evil and be a Christian. Practice is the key word here; if one practices the the sin of homosexuality, he/she is not truly repentant. I know when I’ve done wrong; I feel guilt and pray for forgiveness and the the power to overcome. Most who claim to be homosexual Christians embrace their homosexuality! There is no repentance, they only want to be “accepted the way they are.” Often I hear from them “don’t judge me or my lifestyle, but their own words incriminate them; they know deep down that this is all wrong, yet refuse to submit to the Word!
Can homosexuals BECOME CHRISTIANS-yes. Does God want them to remain that way-no.
Listen folks, sometimes you just have to take a stand on some issues.
Davy D Hobson on 04 Jan 2010 at 11:10 pm #
Wow! That is one of the best and I mean THE BEST essay or article I have ever read about the subject!
Your wisdom can only come from a real Christian that struggles daily and has learned a thing or two in life the hard way. I have always thought all along that we have been glorifying this despicable sin by categorizing it and setting it apart with it’s own identity and self fulfilling fate. We actually empower it by treating it as such.
Romans 1 and 2 support what you are saying and I truly believe the only way out for those caught up in such a behavior is to not see themselves as such but to see themselves as sinners and no different that the rest of us except that the stench from their actions is a little more nauseating perhaps, but the same fire that burns in them to result in their particular sin, burns within us all. Hence we see various other types of results from ourselves even though it is not in that realm, it still amounts to being just as evil and sinful because sin is sin and it all results in death.
Dave Z on 04 Jan 2010 at 11:26 pm #
As someone said, sanctification is a process.
We have acouple in our church who have been living together for years. They have a couple of kids together. They have been getting more involved in our congregation and leadership has been talking about approaching them regarding their situation.
Well, a couple of days ago they came in and asked about getting married. We had not addressed them. But the Holy Spirit did.
The point is that for years they were not ready to repent. But would we say that they were unsaved during this time? Would we say people living together can not be truly saved because they are “practicing” sin? No, they just had to reach the point where they were willing to submit to God’s plan in that area of their lives. It’s just part of the process.
The same can be true of homosexuals. The Holy Spirit will deal with the sin in their lives, but it might not happen the day of salvation, so they may indeed be homosexual Christians for some period of time.
Hodge on 04 Jan 2010 at 11:57 pm #
“The point is that for years they were not ready to repent. But would we say that they were unsaved during this time? Would we say people living together can not be truly saved because they are “practicing” sin? No, they just had to reach the point where they were willing to submit to God’s plan in that area of their lives. It’s just part of the process.”
I think this is the problem: We’re all approaching this from different views of grace. I don’t believe these people were Christians because a Christian must repent in order to become a Christian. Can he or she sin? Yes. Can a Christian practice unrepentant sin which he or she knows the Church says is wrong according to Scripture? No.
“1 Jn 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin . 6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; 8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one who is born of God practices sin , because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin , because he is born of God. 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God”
C Michael Patton on 05 Jan 2010 at 12:20 am #
“Can a Christian practice unrepentant sin which he or she knows the Church says is wrong according to Scripture? No.”
Sure, if they have a different interpretation than “the” church. I am not justifying this, but there are many who seek to find fellowship around those who share their interpretation to remedy the conflict. Think of legalistic Christians (which, in my opinion, there are many practicing and it is clear that it is wrong). They go to legalistic churches to make themselves feel better. Homosexual Christians may find a Homosexual church.
Problem: There are plenty of legalistic churches and homosexual churches.
Nothing has changed. The mood of the religious culture can sometimes create groups that are not representative of true Christianity, but nonetheless, have true and decieved Christians who know that they are in rebellion against the rest of “the” church.
It was this was in Christ’s day. Did Peter know that prejudice was wrong? He should have, but the cultural religion of the day had moved in a different direction.
I have seen KJV only churches. Very legalistic. An argument could be made that a practicing legalistic Christian is much worse than a practicing homosexual. Can a KJV Only person be saved? ….
Hodge on 05 Jan 2010 at 1:25 am #
Well, Michael, actually I said the “Church,” not a church. There’s a big difference there. The historic Christian Church is unified on the message. I agree that churches can be in rebellion against the Church, but they know the message of the Church. That is all that is necessary, whether they believe it or not.
I disagreed with your post that Peter was racist for twelve years. He was observing what he thought was the OT law of separation. Racism and the issue with the Jews observing separation laws are two different things. His was a misunderstanding of how to obey, not participating in a rebellion in which he willfully persisted. This is a fact since we know once Paul made him aware of the correct theology of how that works out in the Jewish-Gentile Church, he repented.
Is legalism worse than homosexuality? No, it’s not. It might equal it in some cases, but it certainly isn’t worse. Only a legalism that undermined the gospel, however, would be equated at best. KJV Onlyism is absurd, but not legalistic in my mind. I know churches that are legalistic and these churches tend to be that way as well though, so I would simply say that what is not Christian is not Christian whether that takes the form of false Christian religion that enables the practice of legalism or false Christian religion that enables the practice of homosexuality.
HornSpiel on 05 Jan 2010 at 1:32 am #
Michael,
Thanks for your calm and reasoned perspective. If we rephrase your question: Can God save a homosexual? I think the answer is obvious. Does He? I hope He does. Just like I hope He saves alcoholics, swindlers, and the covetous. These people are all on shaky ground and may have no assurance of their salvation, but will some be saved? I imagine some will be. God can do whatever He wants—and I do not think we have enough information in the Bible to say categorically He wouldn’t in some circumstances.
Nightraptor on 05 Jan 2010 at 1:37 am #
CMP,
Nice one bringing up the story of Peter as I think this is a very good example of someone who was for a time unrepentantly sinning. To his credit he did eventually repent, though Paul had to lay the smackdown on him in order to do so. However, even if Peter had not repented and had continued to believe that he was right and Paul was wrong I would not consider Peter unsaved. Certainly deceived (as all of us are to greater and lesser extents) but not unsaved.
C Michael Patton on 05 Jan 2010 at 2:36 am #
Right, and I would certainly see Christ’s admonition against the Pharisee’s legalism, “brood of vipers” “blind leading the blind” etc., as as serious a rebuke as I see in all of scripture. Legalistic Christians can certainly be Christians, but they are, in my understanding of Scripture, the worst kind. The KJV only may be deceived into a practice which is sinful (i.e. preaching a severely distorted Gospel), “Blind leaders of the blind”, but, they, nonetheless, CAN be saved even though they live in legalistic pride. Should they repent? Absolutely. Will they if they are Christians? I hope.
Sue on 05 Jan 2010 at 2:43 am #
Michael,
Its a good post. You have also hit on my exact situation. I first voted with my congregation to reject the same sex blessing. And then I read the statement against the TNIV and I realized that it was not true but it had been signed by one of the leaders against the same sex blessing.
So I was in a position of either fellowshipping with those in homosexual relationships or with slanderers.
It actually was a long process which lead me to reject the slanderers. I don’t actually know any same sex couples in the church, but hypothetically this seems less worrisome to me. In terms of a testimony to non-Christians, slanderers do the reputation of Christ far more harm.
I also wanted to respond to this,
“Sexual relations between men and women are “natural” because that is how God created us to work. Same sex relations are “unnatural” because they go against God’s created order. I don’t know that we should shy away from biblical language, especially in conversation with other believers.”
This is what Lot seemed to think, that the rape of women was a lesser sin than the rape of a man. I don’t see how it would be better to be the victim of a natural sex act rather than of an unnatural sex act.
Anonymous on 05 Jan 2010 at 5:12 am #
Hello More Anonymous
That a nice rhetorical ploy you deployed but let me try another. Substitute eating disorder for homosexuality. Our first Christian is a bulimic who binge eats and then purges. She knows she is loved by God but is unable to conquer her very destructive neurosis. Eventually it kills her. The second is a Man with a similar eating disorder. He is obese. He tries to diet but he just can’t say no to second or (even third) portions. In the end he just gives up and makes his peace shopping at big and tall shops and although it may take years but he recognizes he is killing himself with his knife and fork.
Why do we obsess over some sins and not others? Why do we deploy such hyperbolic and inflammatory language (if the first rule of politics is to not compare you opponent to a Nazi maybe the first rule of strait/gay discussions should be drop the pedophile language?). Tell me why we demand from Gays a level of sacrifice that we would never demand of ourselves? The double standard between the way the church treats it divorced and gay members is becoming obvious even to those outside the church.
Peace
(Less Anonymous)
Less Anonymous on 05 Jan 2010 at 8:29 am #
Hello More Anonymous
That a nice rhetorical ploy you deployed but let me try another: Substitute an eating disorder for homosexuality. Our first Christian is a bulimic who binge eats and then purges. She knows she is loved by God but is unable to conquer her very destructive neurosis. Eventually it kills her. The second is a Man with a similar eating disorder. He is obese. He tries to diet but he just can’t say no to second or (even third) portions. In the end he just gives up and makes his peace shopping at big and tall shops and although it may take years but he recognizes he is killing himself with his knife and fork. Neither of these Christians would face any but the most modest stigma and certainly no sanction from the most orthodox of churches (just think what would happen to the SBC if overweight (gluttonous) ministers were disqualified from service?
Why do we obsess over some sins and not others? Why do we deploy such hyperbolic and inflammatory language (if the first rule of politics is to not compare you opponent to a Nazi maybe the first rule of straight/gay discussions should be drop the pedophile language?). Tell me why we demand from Gays a level of sacrifice that we would never demand of ourselves? The double standard between the way the church treats it divorced and gay members is becoming obvious even to those outside the church. God gave us a moral compass and to love God with our whole hearts means that we are commanded to use it. We are all sinners and it is the height of hypocrisy to dam the sins of our brothers but at the same time reduces our own sins to mere peccadilloes.
Peace
(Less Anonymous)
Kara P. on 05 Jan 2010 at 9:15 am #
Thank you for this post and for the link to your other post about all sins not being equal. I like how your mind works! I wish I could clearly defend my arguments as you seem to do so easily. None of us have all the answers but if our aim is to be more loving, kind, gracious, understanding, truthful and Christlike, then we can do no wrong. I agree that sin is disgusting. I have been a victim of some terrible crimes. I hate sin more than anyone can hate sin.
As much as I hate sin, I wish I could keep my mouth shut. There are tons of Bible verses on this particular issue and I feel condemned everytime I read them but it’s like I can’t stop. My mouth just spews venom or gossip or babbles. So I’m going to practice right now before I say what I want to say.
C. Barton on 05 Jan 2010 at 9:23 am #
I’ve noticed what seems to be an unspoken assumption, that sins of ignorance or confusion are “OK”, whereas sins which involve the will are “Not OK”. I speak in worldly terms, of course, because all sin is bad. Apostle Paul said that the whole world is without excuse, because even those who didn’t know the law of Moses had a natural sense of right and wrong: conscience. And here’s the rub: if my sin involves my will, but my conscience is dull, do I sin worse than one who is weak towards sin but has a sensitive conscience? Really, only God can judge such situations.
Sanctification (removal of sinful acts and practices) is from God, and not merely from our own efforts, or self-will, to be good; and sometimes this isn’t instantaneous in all areas of a Chirtian life. Repentance includes saying, “Hey Papa Yahweh, I agree Your Word is true, even though I can’t seem to do all that It says, but I await Your strength to do so.”
By the way, Apostle John was using language regarding sin and abiding in Christ mainly to address the heresy of Gnosticism, in which people freely practiced immorality and denied that Jesus was God, etc., and must be applied carefully in a general sense.
Thanks to Michael for the Theology Program – it’s worth the work.
Dave Z on 05 Jan 2010 at 11:04 am #
Hodge, it sounds as if you’re saying sanctification is not a process; that full repentance must be instantaneous. That’s pretty far outside the mainstream. Well, except for Nazarenes.
Maybe you mean that once someone realizes something is sinful they will stop doing it. IOW, willful sin. But isn’t all sin willful?
Maybe, like CMP said, the truth of the sin has not really been understood. What I mean is that you or I can tell someone something is sinful all day long, but until the Holy Spirit convicts, that truth may not really sink in. “You can lead a sinner to scripture, but you can’t make him drink.” But the Holy Spirit can, and God works in his time, not yours or mine.
Wow, we’re disagreeing again. I feel so much better. That agreement stuff was scary! :^)
Hodge on 05 Jan 2010 at 11:55 am #
“However, even if Peter had not repented and had continued to believe that he was right and Paul was wrong I would not consider Peter unsaved.”
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he [began] to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
1. Paul says he was condemned
2. Paul says that this was not a 12 year sin, but one which happened for a brief time
3. It was a matter of observing separation laws that were confused so that they applied only to Jews in the Church
Michael,
My point was that I don’t believe a legalist defined by the Scripture is saved. Christ says the Pharisees are damned. Paul says the Judaizers are false brethren and those who follow them have fallen from grace (i.e., they cannot partake of it anymore). So a true legalist, not a KJV onlyist necessarily, cannot be a Christian according to Scripture because it contradicts the gospel in the same way that a repententless faith does (cf James 2).
C. Barton,
Christ was also speaking to Nicodemus in John 3 in order to let him know that God loved not only the Jew but also the Gentile. So what? That has nothing to do with whether what is said applies. If John says that Christians do not continue to sin (and everything in 1 Jn is not simply combating Gnosticism–is John honestly combating Gnosticism when he tells Christians to share with one another? It may be the case, but the instructions to Christians are more important here than the polemic against the Gnostics). It, therefore, does not matter whether he is speaking to the Docetics or not. It only matters if the statements he is using to combat them are true. Do Christians continue to sin? According to John’s argument, No.
Hodge on 05 Jan 2010 at 12:09 pm #
Dave,
How sad. I was about to invite you over for tea.
“Hodge, it sounds as if you’re saying sanctification is not a process; that full repentance must be instantaneous. That’s pretty far outside the mainstream. Well, except for Nazarenes.”
Of course sanctification is a process, but what is sanctification? My agreeing that everything God says is really true before I change? That’s retaining lordship over myself, so that I change only when I agree that I should. Christianity is about God’s lordship, not my own. If God tells me something is wrong, I am to believe Him and turn away from it. To wait until I understand it myself before I change is to be an atheist, not a Christian. If my child runs into the street, and I tell him to get out of it, it would be absurd to suggest that he is under my authority if in fact he ignores me until he understands why he should get out of the street.
What I am saying then is that justification is based on a faith that desires to transfer lordship from self to Christ. Sanctification is a matter of learning what the Lord has said and gaining victory in the struggle. My issue with Michael’s post was that Michael was indicating that one could be justified without repentant faith. I disagree with that notion. One can be justified and struggle. One cannot be justified and persist in a sin that God has said is wrong, whether he understands that or not (most don’t understand why God says it; that’s the deception placed upon the world).
“Maybe you mean that once someone realizes something is sinful they will stop doing it. IOW, willful sin. But isn’t all sin willful?”
No, I don’t think it is. We can break it up into sin and tresspass, but the term “sin” I think encompasses both.
Heb 10:26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on [the testimony of] two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Heb 12:25 See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking. For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned [them] on earth, much less [shall] we [escape] who turn away from Him who [warns] from heaven.
C. Barton on 05 Jan 2010 at 12:14 pm #
To Hodge:
Yes, praise God, we who are born again have ceased from Sin! John did of course use truth to combat lies, and he gave us a glimpse of our new life in Christ regarding regeneration and sanctification. I think John’s description is not the basis for a legalistic imperative, however.
I guess my point is that our security regarding salvation cannot be redacted because of John’s exposition of the nature of Christian character in comparison to Gnostic character. My simple caveat is that we must be careful when taking John’s few phrases out of context and generalizing them in opposition to the doctrine of eternal security.
Also, Apostle Paul says, hey, we’re free! But do we use our freedom to continue sinning?
No! How can we keep on sinning with this new life and Spirit in us?
Here Paul echos the new nature we have: before salvation, we lived in sin – after salvation, we live by faith: yes, we have freedom, but God wants our obedience as well.
Hodge on 05 Jan 2010 at 12:14 pm #
Having said that, Can a Christian fall into sin? Yes. Will he go undisciplined by the Lord, and should he be undisciplined by the Church? No. But willfully persisting after all discipline has been applied, indicates that a supernatural birth never took place. The person is void of the Spirit.
Hodge on 05 Jan 2010 at 12:21 pm #
“I think John’s description is not the basis for a legalistic imperative, however.
I guess my point is that our security regarding salvation cannot be redacted because of John’s exposition of the nature of Christian character in comparison to Gnostic character. My simple caveat is that we must be careful when taking John’s few phrases out of context and generalizing them in opposition to the doctrine of eternal security.”
Yeah, neither do I. What I’m saying isn’t legalism. I’m saying that when John uses the proposition “those who are born of God do not sin” that statement is either true or false regardless to whom it is addressing. If the statement isn’t necessarily true then John has no argument against antinomians, whether they be Gnostic or otherwise. So if John says, by this we know we are saved, and that those who practice righteousness are righteous, are you saying that John is really just saying as long as your perpetual sinning isn’t because you believe in Docetism, you know that you’re saved? I doubt you’re saying this, but your caution to limit John’s words to their historical referents, as opposed to its continual instruction of the entire Christian Church for all time, leads in that direction.
Jesse G on 05 Jan 2010 at 12:22 pm #
Sue #46,
I had trouble following the first half of your post. What statement “against the TNIV” did you read? And how did someone signing it make him a “slanderer.”
I, of course, agree that slander does harm to the cause of Christ, but naming biblically defined sin as sin isn’t slanderous. Neither is a leader confronting a member of your congregation who is openly living in sin. Again because I had a hard time following your comments, I don’t know is this is what you meant or not. But just as true slander harms the cause of Christ, so does turning a blind eye to a sinful lifestyle. Should a gay unbeliever look at the same sex couples in your church, would he assume that he needs to repent of his lifestyle (of which the Bible says he will be excluded from the kingdom of heaven for practicing) or would He assume that he’ll be ok continuing to live it. . . claiming Christianity without repentance .
We are commanded to be holy as God is holy, set apart for Him, a light shining in a dark and twisted generation, we cannot be this if the world can’t tell the difference between us and them.
You also said:
“This is what Lot seemed to think, that the rape of women was a lesser sin than the rape of a man. I don’t see how it would be better to be the victim of a natural sex act rather than of an unnatural sex act.”
I’m curious how my comments about using Paul’s language concerning doing that which is “natural” and “unnatural” added up to the rape of women is a lesser sin than the rape of men . . .
Any sexual act outside of a marriage between one man and one woman is sin. My point was simply, we shouldn’t shy away from using language that God chose as sufficient i.e. calling homosexual acts “unnatural”.
Hodge on 05 Jan 2010 at 12:23 pm #
“My simple caveat is that we must be careful when taking John’s few phrases out of context and generalizing them in opposition to the doctrine of eternal security.”
This is not what I was doing. I believe in perseverance of the saints, but perseverance is that they persevere to struggle in faith and repentance to overcome their sin. The person not born of God does not do this.
C. Barton on 05 Jan 2010 at 12:40 pm #
Hodge: I agree with you that Biblical truth is universal, so no, I do not limit John’s description of Christian character only to the context of the letter. And John also explained sanctification: if we sin, we have an advocate; if we confess, God is faithful to sanctify us. There is no other way to combine these truths except to say that our hearts are turned from sin, and a life of sin, yet we continue to stumble and stray within the context of our new lives: God’s goal for us is that we walk a straight path of constant fellowship in Him, or “abiding in Christ”, at which time (and at times in every life) we are following the Spirit, and so do not “sin”.
As Michael teaches in the Sanctification classes, it is generally agreed and backed by scripture that we struggle with sin as part of our spiritual growth -Christ commands us to endure, and He promises us victory.
In the OT there is a beautiful verse, that a righteous man might fall a hundred times but he gets up and keeps going. This isn’t so much a testimony of physical strength as it is of a spiritual committment to completing the journey.
Hodge on 05 Jan 2010 at 12:44 pm #
C. Barton,
Thanks for the clarification. I think we agree here. God bless.
Dave Z on 05 Jan 2010 at 12:48 pm #
Hey Hodge, I was thinking we could go to the White House for a beer with the Prez, but not now, you…
Another factor here is the nature of salvation, and I don’t know whether you align with Calvin or Arminius. At any rate, your position (as I understand it) could lead us to say that God is sitting around waiting to see if the person repents before finalizing the salvation paperwork. But salvation of an individual must exist from “before the foundation of the world.” Therefore that salvation must be in place even if sin and rebellion continues.
I say this in part because it is my own experience. Looking back at my life, I clearly see that even while I was in full rebellion, God was preparing the path he had for me, and was positioning me to walk it. Regardless of the fact that I was practicing sin as hard as I could.
C Michael Patton on 05 Jan 2010 at 1:41 pm #
Hodge, I think you are misunderstanding the force of the argument about Peter. It was not until Act 10 that he was reprimanded for his sin of prejudice. This is 12 years (according to most, but at least 8 years) after Pentecost. This does not even deal with Paul’s rebuke, which intensifies my argument.
My point is that Christians can and often do live in unrepentant sin. The reasons for such are many. Sometimes there is a willful rebellion that gives way to justification of the sin. Sometimes it is a self-deception. Sometimes it involves the deception of the culture which cause people to stumble in many ways. Whatever the case, it is still sin and it is still persistent. I could go on and give both personal, relational, and biblical examples, but I think the Peter example is very strong and I stand by it as an example of how Christians with the Spirit living in them can live with persistent sin for some time.
Did God come in and correct Peter? Yes. But it was many years later. But his sin of prejudice was terrible and certainly rivals, in my opinion, any other sin that one can bring forward.
I am not trying to justify homosexuality. It is a particularly terrible sin that is both destructive and hideous in God’s eyes. But I am trying to give Christians perspective so that we can minister to people, both Christian and non, more effectively without falling into the sin of judgmentalism ourselves.
Hodge on 05 Jan 2010 at 2:09 pm #
“Hodge, I think you are misunderstanding the force of the argument about Peter. It was not until Act 10 that he was reprimanded for his sin of prejudice. This is 12 years (according to most, but at least 8 years) after Pentecost. This does not even deal with Paul’s rebuke, which intensifies my argument.”
Oh, I see, I thought you were referring to Paul’s rebuke, and the brief lapse Peter had. If that is the case then I would once again argue that Peter is not in sin for 12 years, since he is not a racist, but is practicing the law of separation in the OT. In other words, he is trying to obey God, not do something other than what God declared His will to be. I don’t, therefore, think the argument has much force because you’re confusing what Peter is doing with racism or what would later become a sin if he had rejected what God revealed to him about the law of separation in Acts 10. He does reject it for a brief period as Paul describes in Gal 2, and therefore, as Paul said, he stood condemned. As such, your example is not a good one, and you need to provide another. Whenever a person who is claiming to be a Christian persists in unrepentant sin, the Scripture indicates that they are a so-called brother (i.e., a Christian in name only), and that they will be judged as all of the sons of disobedience. I think that you are instead applying a common misconception in evangelicalism that separates grace and the faith through which it works from repentance, which is seen only as a part of sanctification. But the Scripture indicates that if a person is unrepentant once they are rebuked for a sin they are condemned. In other words, they are either temporarily under the judgment of God that will bring about His discipline or they were never Christians at all in the first place and the reason why they do not repent is that the Spirit is not in them. Either way, once rebuke and discipline has occurred and the person does not repent, the claim that these individuals are Christians, according to the Scripture, is to be rendered invalid, and they are to be dismissed from the community until genuine repentance takes place.
“Did God come in and correct Peter? Yes. But it was many years later. But his sin of prejudice was terrible and certainly rivals, in my opinion, any other sin that one can bring forward.”
No, I disagree. There was no sin until God laid down different boundaries for separation than what were previously laid down; and I only see his sin in Gal 2 rivaling other sins because of its disobedience to the gospel. For this Paul says he stood condemned.
Hodge on 05 Jan 2010 at 2:15 pm #
“I am not trying to justify homosexuality. It is a particularly terrible sin that is both destructive and hideous in God’s eyes. But I am trying to give Christians perspective so that we can minister to people, both Christian and non, more effectively without falling into the sin of judgmentalism ourselves.”
I understand your intentions, Michael, but your comments do justify the practice of homosexuality in the sense that Christians can still persist in it and be Christians. I think our ministry is to call people out of it and let them know that lordship of the self must be abandoned if one is to pick up his cross and follow the Lord instead. That means a call of the gospel is a call to repentance and faith in Christ, not a call that just offers grace to people who don’t want to change. Having said that, the claim that it is judgmental to say that a lack of repentance brings about condemnation is to say that anyone who repeats the claims of Scripture is judgmental. I see it instead as being concerned for the glory of God, the welfare of the body of Christ, and the unsaved individual. In other words, it is a warning of love, not haughtiness on the part of someone saying it. It could be used to exalt the self, but does not have to be. So if you really want to guard against judgmentalism then deal with the intentions of the individuals who speak about homosexuality rather than the call to repentance itself. Salvation is by grace through repentant faith, not apart from it.
Hodge on 05 Jan 2010 at 2:21 pm #
Dave,
I’m a Calvinist. I believe everyone’s salvation is set from the beginning as well. I believe, however, that a saved person can stand temporarily condemned (outside of and not under the temporal protection of God for a time) at any point in their lives. How do we then know the difference between one who is saved and one who is not? The one who is saved will repent, as Peter did. The one who is not will not repent. Hence, the one who is saved from before the foundation of the world will work out his salvation with fear and trembling and the one who is not saved, will not.
Dave Z on 05 Jan 2010 at 2:29 pm #
So, a homosexual who is currently unrepentant, but who will repent oh, say… three years from now, is still saved from before the foundation of the world.
Sounds like you agree with Michael…
But I’m not sure what you mean by temporarily condemned. New concept for me. Temporarily unsaved? What does it look like on a practical basis?
Hodge on 05 Jan 2010 at 2:44 pm #
Dave,
I don’t agree that with Michael that an unrepentant homosexual is saved. I would not posit that a person in a three year sin is saved. They may enter that salvation in the future, but not at that time.
I would also say that a person who is temporarily condemned is the same as a person who may be elected to be saved, but has not yet come to faith. Will they be saved? Yes. Are they currently justified (under the protection of God and in His presence)? No. I’m a Calvinist, who believes that salvation comes through repentant faith, not a hyper-Calvinist, who believes that a person is always saved, even in their willful rebellion. If you want to know what being temporarily condemned looks like, I think this is a good indication of that:
1 Cor 5:1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2 And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst. 3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 [I have decided] to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Dave Z on 05 Jan 2010 at 4:40 pm #
I guess I view salvation as already/not yet. Outside of the time continuum of creation, we are already seated in the heavenly realms with Christ. From a Calvinist perspective of unconditional election, irresistable Grace and God’s sovereignty, the concept of “where are they now” has little meaning. All that counts is how it ends.
But then things always get sticky when trying to figure out how time plays into God’s plan.
The meaning of “Handing over to Satan” is kind of obscure, but is usually taken to mean church discipline – being put out of the church. Roman Catholics may see excommunication as voiding salvation, but I don’t think most Protestants do. Therefore, the one handed over is still saved.
Hodge on 05 Jan 2010 at 5:14 pm #
Dave,
I agree it’s difficult to try and figure the eternal into the temporal. I think it is the duty of the church to just figure the temporal (i.e., what is this person’s situation right now based on what they are saying and doing).
Note: the handing over is in order that the person might be saved, not because he is saved. Paul doesn’t know anymore than we do. Church discipline is removing the person from the community as an effort to say to that person that he has rejected the lordship of Christ and the government of His ecclesiastical community, and therefore, as it stands now, cannot be viewed as a believer. The question, therefore, as to whether he will prove himself a believer or will become a believer in the future is more speculation. The point is that the church must consider him as though he is not until he repents, if in fact he has been rebuked and still refuses to repent.
Hodge on 05 Jan 2010 at 5:16 pm #
BTW, I would assign “already/not yet” to the struggle with sin, not the lack of repentance from it.
Nightraptor on 05 Jan 2010 at 5:50 pm #
Hodge,
I have never heard anyone articulate the theology you are articulating. It seems that you are a Calvinist who is denying the “P” of the five points. I’m not a Calvinist, but having a number of friends who are my understanding is that either you have been given saving faith or you have not. Either Peter had been given salvation before Paul rebuked him or he had not. You are instead saying that Peter was saved, lost his salvation when he fell into the sin of racism, and then regained it when he repented. This is absurd according to just about every perspective I know of save the Roman Catholic Church (no pun intended). This position wreaks of legalism. Either you are perfect (or at least perfect at repenting) or you are unsaved. One sin you don’t realize is a sin and don’t repent of and BAM! hell for you. I submit that according to your theology God has saved no one. Everyone has committed sins they either didn’t realize were sins and completely forgot about and have not yet repented of.
Hodge on 05 Jan 2010 at 6:04 pm #
Night,
Let me suggest to you that you’ve neither understood what I am saying nor have you understood the nature of P. P is not “once saved always saved.” Instead, it is the doctrine that tells us that all who God elects to be saved will persevere through the struggle and come out with faith. I have said at no time that someone loses his salvation. I said that if someone is saved, he will repent once rebuke and discipline has taken place. Peter was saved, under the judgment of God for his sin, but because he was saved that judgment functioned as the catalyst that brought him to repentance. I never said that Peter lost his eternal salvation, but that in the moment of persistent sin, Paul says that he stood condemned. That standing, for the unsaved, would have led to eternal condemnation, but since Peter was saved, he repented, and it resulted in the proof of that fact, i.e., his repentance.
So was Peter in good standing with God when he was in sin, or did he stand condemned? Was David under God’s judgment when God killed his son, or was he always in good standing with God? Perhaps, that’s a better way to put it then to talk about someone being saved or unsaved. If someone is not in good standing with God, and they remain there after rebuke and discipline, then one must conclude that their not being in good standing with God is a result of their not being saved either. Peter repented when rebuked, so did David. I don’t see the same for those who they supposedly represent in this debate.
Hodge on 05 Jan 2010 at 6:05 pm #
“Everyone has committed sins they either didn’t realize were sins and completely forgot about and have not yet repented of.”
Can you show me a Biblical example of a believer who practiced sin, was rebuked for it, did not repent, but was still saved?
Sue on 05 Jan 2010 at 6:40 pm #
Jesse G,
The statement of concern against the Today’s New International version was drafted by CBMW I believe. It made the claim that the version was not trustworthy and had inaccuracies.
This is an example. The TNIV changes verbs from singular to plural to avoid using “he.” However, what is not explained in the statement is that often, the Greek does not have “he” either but simply a singular verb with no pronoun. So, any other version has added in the masculine pronoun “he.” Therefore, the TNIV is not less trustworthy than any other Bible. It is just different.
However, very high profile signatory to the statement against the TNIV was in our congregation. He is a leading figure against same sex blessing. But then I thought the statement against the TNIV was slander.
The truth is that I was not aware of any same sex couples in our very large church. Anyway, this was the very beginning of my acceptance of homosexuals in the church. It was reading that verse in Romans.
Every choice is a dilemma as Michael is so good at pointing out.
alexeyhurricane on 05 Jan 2010 at 7:27 pm #
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins
Nightraptor on 05 Jan 2010 at 8:49 pm #
Hodge,
As a practical matter (I like practical) your point about rebuke and discipline is moot because there is simply no authority that has the ability to do this. Such authority dissolved when the catholic church went apostate necessitating the Protestant Reformation. As is everyone simply goes to whatever Church will tell them whatever it is they want to hear. In some Churches anything goes and in others you would be considered apostate and unsaved for seeing a “G” rated movie at the movie theater. As a result the “rebuke and discipline” of the local church is meaningless and in many cases perverted as a means of determining whether or not someone is a “unrepentant sinner”.
Now you can appeal to the “historical church”, but everyone even disagrees on how to properly define this and what these beliefs are. For instance as any good Calvinist I’m sure you believe that the proper understanding of the atonement is Penal Substitution. Yet I don’t even need to remind you of how long after Christ this doctrine developed and was fully articulated. So one could just say that the earlier church was “mistaken” on homosexuality and misinterpreted the Bible according to their cultural prejudices etc etc etc. just like they were wrong in viewing Christ’s death as paying a debt owed to Satan on our behalf. This may be ridiculous but there are some very sophisticated arguments on the issue of homosexuality in the Bible out there which would take the equivalent of a few semesters of Seminary education or more to properly refute.
Hodge on 05 Jan 2010 at 10:47 pm #
“As a result the “rebuke and discipline” of the local church is meaningless and in many cases perverted as a means of determining whether or not someone is a “unrepentant sinner”.
This is an argument that attempts to say that if there are corruptions then the real thing shouldn’t be practiced. It is coupled with the idea that because a person may flee to another church that renders the authority of the present local body invalid
The first argument I think is refuted all by itself when we see it for what it is by restating it as above.
The second argument misunderstands the nature of church discipline and the early church. The early church had plenty of religious bodies that even claimed Christ to which one could run after being disciplined by a local body. That has nothing to do with whether the church should practice it.
1. Discipline is primarily for the local body of believers who will be corrupted in their thinking of the gospel (as many have here) by the granting of fellowship to people who claim to be Christians yet persist in unrepentant sin. So regardless of what the individual does, the body should be protected.
2. The discipline serves as both a rebuke by the community, but also a proclamation concerning what is going to happen to the individual if in fact they are going to be disciplined by God. It does not matter where the individual runs at that point because the point is that he has been told that he is cut off from God until he repents. He can attend other churches til the cows come home. It’s irrelevant.
The historic claim is made by many people, but it’s not backed up by many. What’s the rival of the historic church? Gnosticism? Arianism? Yes, there can be cults that claim otherwise, but that’s irrelevant for evangelicals if they want to claim orthodox Christianity. (views of atonement are varied in the early church, none of which are made a matter of exclusive orthodoxy–i.e., one can believe the ransom theory, Christus victor, theosis, and the later development of penal substitution together. They don’t cancel each other out). So I would not make the claim that the church was wrong about a theology or ethic in which it was unified for 2,000 years in order to replace it with a clearly cultural view of that same issue. I realize there are sophisticated arguments, but they fail to deal with the overall theology of creation and chaos in Scripture and its application to sexual acts. I’m actually writing a book right now on the subject, and all I can see being accomplished is a circumnavigating of proof-texts rather than a serious study of the general ideas behind the Biblical thinking about sexuality.
Having said that, I agree that it takes forever to unravel the mess of interpretation provided by our modern culture; but this is precisely why belief is important. If one waits around until he or she understands an issue for him or herself then say goodbye to any comprehension of the truth as the apostles imagined it.
Victor on 05 Jan 2010 at 10:51 pm #
Homosexuals can BECOME Christians & not BE Christians (while continuing to practice it)!
C Michael Patton on 06 Jan 2010 at 12:30 am #
Hodge, I don’t really want to go much further with this. These posts are really not forums as they have become. But from what I can see, you are saying that racism was sanctioned in the OT, but repealled in the NT. I think you have better take a second look at the law of Isreal concerning the other nations and the rebuke that the Gospel brings to Isreal’s inability to be a kingdom of preists to the nations.
Peter was certianly in sin for 12 years following the faulty understanding of the religious culture. I doubt you would want to make an arguement that as long as the religious culture of the day condoned the practice, others are not held liable. Romans 2 would not work too well with that.
Nightraptor on 06 Jan 2010 at 9:41 am #
Hodge,
Nothing in your post 77 comes even close to refuting the point I was making. From the perspective of a layperson viewing the big picture there is no way to know which local church is competent to render “rebuke and discipline” properly. I would go so far as to say the vast majority of “churches” are corrupt when it comes to this issue. They either tend towards anything goes or legalism. It is not that the real thing shouldn’t be practiced – it is rather that there is no way for a layperson to know if it is being practiced properly thus undermining the system. Thus people are likely to see actions by the local church that go against what they believe as a corruption in the local church, and in many cases they may be right.
As to number 2 you essentially concede the point. It takes a great deal of education and understanding to unravel the various interpretations out there (and even then many highly educated, very smart, Bible believing Christians still disagree on numerous issues – though generally not this one). Where I think you go off is that someone should just “believe” without understanding the issue for themselves. One could just “believe” that the interpretations given by the pro-homosexual crowd to the Bible are correct as well. They may be deceived on that matter to someone who is educated in the matter, but to a layperson it could just as easily be the other way around and we are the deceived ones.
Steve in Toronto on 06 Jan 2010 at 9:45 am #
There is something very strange going on in this conversion that I hope our host (or perhaps someone else) will clarify for me. What does Michael mean when he says “Peter was certainly in sin for 12 years following the faulty understanding of the religious culture?” Does this mean that Peter stopped being in sin when he changed his mind about how he associated with Gentiles? My understanding of sin is that it is pervasive it is impossible for a fallen human not to sin. Every Sunday I say my confession publicly and walk up the aisle to receive commune and without fail I have committed a sin during that 30 foot walk. Jesus sets a very high bar for us. I have either committed adultery in my heart (there are some very attractive women in our church). Murder (some of my fellow parishes really get on my nerves), theft (I covet the wealth of some of my fellow worshipers) and if by some miracle I fail to commitment any of the above sins I will inevitably fall into the sin of pride congratulating myself for my virtue. We are all sinner saved by Christ blood we stand before God clad only in Christ righteousness. I just don’t understand how anyone who understands this can stand in judgment on someone else’s sin. The Apostles Paul describes himself as “the worst of sinners” 1Timothy 1:15 and I am pretty sure I am coming in a close second (my gut tells me I have him beat by a mile but I don’t want to challenge his apostolic authority!). We are losing sight of the Gospel. It is Christ Blood that saves us not our correct doctrine or sexual purity!
Peace
Steve in Toronto
Hodge on 06 Jan 2010 at 10:22 am #
“Hodge, I don’t really want to go much further with this. These posts are really not forums as they have become. But from what I can see, you are saying that racism was sanctioned in the OT, but repealled in the NT. I think you have better take a second look at the law of Isreal concerning the other nations and the rebuke that the Gospel brings to Isreal’s inability to be a kingdom of preists to the nations.”
Oh Michael, come on. Your imposing your paradigm of modern concepts of racism on the OT and then saying that it’s a sin. Well, God told them to do it, so is God sinning? Separation laws existed in Israel because they had to keep themselves distinct from the nations. They were a physical nation and that meant their separation manifested itself in a physical way. Now, that is not the case. Israel has become spiritual Israel, and separation has become primarily spiritual in nature. Peter had to learn this change. This does not make him a racist for following OT law. That is a ridiculous misunderstanding of what occurs with the Jews in the early church. Were some racist? Sure. Is that Peter’s problem? I don’t think so. He uses the terminology of clean vs. unclean, which is a Levitical concept of separation, which he is attempting to obey.
“Peter was certianly in sin for 12 years following the faulty understanding of the religious culture. I doubt you would want to make an arguement that as long as the religious culture of the day condoned the practice, others are not held liable. Romans 2 would not work too well with that.”
No, my argument is that God had condoned it, and until he revealed to Peter otherwise, Peter was obeying God. He was not in sin for twelve years. He is only in sin once what has been revealed to him is rejected. He does this only for a brief period, as we see in Gal 2. I think your doing quite a bit of eisegesis here, and ignoring both the OT and historical context.
Hodge on 06 Jan 2010 at 10:30 am #
“It is not that the real thing shouldn’t be practiced – it is rather that there is no way for a layperson to know if it is being practiced properly thus undermining the system. Thus people are likely to see actions by the local church that go against what they believe as a corruption in the local church, and in many cases they may be right.”
My point would then be that this is true for anything the local church does or teaches, so according to your argument, teaching and action should be rendered invalid, since there is no way to know whether your local church is teaching and practicing orthodoxy and orthopraxis. One must believe, trust. That trust is both in the Bible and in the church. Are a lot of people probably wrong? Maybe, but that does not render the genuinely orthodox churches practically useless in what they do and teach.
“Where I think you go off is that someone should just “believe” without understanding the issue for themselves. One could just “believe” that the interpretations given by the pro-homosexual crowd to the Bible are correct as well. They may be deceived on that matter to someone who is educated in the matter, but to a layperson it could just as easily be the other way around and we are the deceived ones.”
Which is why there is always a risk in believing, but that is the only option Christianity gives to us. Believe and then understand, not the other way around. I don’t think the other side is equally valid historically. I think most laymen know what the historic position of the church on the matter is. It’s a matter of believing it. Faith seeks understanding, otherwise understanding is sight and not faith. Anyone can believe anything, but I believe, as a Calvinist, that God will bring His people under the truth and into those places that teach it through faith.
Hodge on 06 Jan 2010 at 10:37 am #
“I just don’t understand how anyone who understands this can stand in judgment on someone else’s sin. The Apostles Paul describes himself as “the worst of sinners” 1Timothy 1:15 and I am pretty sure I am coming in a close second (my gut tells me I have him beat by a mile but I don’t want to challenge his apostolic authority!). We are losing sight of the Gospel. It is Christ Blood that saves us not our correct doctrine or sexual purity!”
This concept ignores the distinction between active and passive sin. I would see passive sin as that which we are unaware of, but commit simply by being fallen human beings and ignorant of the good. Active sins I see as willful sin. In other words, it’s sin I consciously do because in the moment I want to do it. That’s the sin we are from which we are to repent. Otherwise, you render the NT schizophrenic when it tells us that we’re saved by faith, but then tells us that we are to discipline members of the body for sexual immorality because one who practices such will not enter the kingdom of God. If your faith does not include repentance and an understanding of willful sin, I’m not sure how the NT would be coherent in your view. (which I’m only guessing is the Lutheran view?)
Hodge on 06 Jan 2010 at 10:40 am #
Michael, If you really want just a string of comments instead of a back and forth, I’ll just bow out of these conversations and not enter them anymore. I didn’t mean to overstep any boundaries. My only suggestion to you would be that to have a comment only type of atmosphere is to mimic the average Bible study where everyone shares his or her opinion, but is never brought to any further discussion, critique, or definitive conclusion. As I said, however, this is your site and I don’t want to go beyond what you envision for this blog. Thanks.
Steve in Toronto on 06 Jan 2010 at 11:17 am #
Re: Hodge
I (and I don’t think the bible) makes any distention between active and passive sin with respect to salvation and perhaps not even in other respects (what is original sin if not “passive”). I think you are in serious danger of confusing Sanctification with Justification. Our desire to live a godly life should be motivated by our gratitude for Gods freely offered forgiveness not a childish desire to please him with our pitiful attempts at righteousness. Your active/inactive distention sounds a bit too much like my sin is ok but your’s is not to me. Look again at Romans 7:18-20 “I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature for I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do–this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.” The key is to keep the focus on Christ! My experience dealing with people (my self included) who struggle with sexual sin is that we are painfully aware of our own helplessness in the face of it. What we need is what all sinners need it the forgiveness of God not the judgment of man! God has blessed me with a wonderful marriage and three terrific kids. Frankly it’s a lot easier for me to be sexually pure now than it was when I was single and in my twenty’s and even now I fail almost constantly! We should feel nothing but compassion for our fellow Christians who have not or can not find the comfort that comes from holy matrimony.
Piece
Steve in Toronto
Hodge on 06 Jan 2010 at 12:01 pm #
Steve,
“The key is to keep the focus on Christ! My experience dealing with people (my self included) who struggle with sexual sin is that we are painfully aware of our own helplessness in the face of it. What we need is what all sinners need it the forgiveness of God not the judgment of man! God has blessed me with a wonderful marriage and three terrific kids. Frankly it’s a lot easier for me to be sexually pure now than it was when I was single and in my twenty’s and even now I fail almost constantly! We should feel nothing but compassion for our fellow Christians who have not or can not find the comfort that comes from holy matrimony.”
This is an either/or again that I think contains the idea that we are justified by a faith that does not include repentance. If you are saying that repentance is a lifestyle then fine. I don’t take issue with that. My problem is that you have to reject half of the NT in order to support what you think you see in the other half. I am simply saying that they harmonize, so that to discipline a Christian for a willful sin (and the Bible does make the distinction between them from Leviticus to Hebrews) is not unChristian in any way, but the loving duty of the Christian.
Adam’s sin isn’t a sin that we committed. It’s a willful sin on his part for which he and his children were cursed. We are under his curse, and we sin in the likeness of his sin to some degree, but we did not commit his sin. That is not why we have a sinful disposition. So I don’t think Adam’s sin is active or passive in us. His curse is simply our curse because we are his children and seen as one with him.
You seem to be saying “because I sin a lot, I cannot condemn anyone else’s sin or enact discipline as the church over that individual.” That to me is absurd. It views love as acceptance of destruction and chaos rather than doing good and turning a person back to life in God. There is nothing salvific about that type of salvation. It’s a mere psychological comfort for those who don’t want to turn away from evil.
You also seem to be confusing a Christian who struggles with one that is in unrepentant sin. I’ve continually made the distinction. If there isn’t a distinction in your mind then I guess in your view a Christian is made by simply believing some facts about Jesus. If repentance is required then you should have no beef with what I am saying.
Steve in Toronto on 06 Jan 2010 at 2:20 pm #
Thanks for your response Hodge.
Let me try to make my self clear. You, me, the apostle Paul, Saint Augustine and Billy Graham everyone all suffer/suffered from unrepentant sin. I will go further and insist that we all suffer from unrepentant sexual sin. We just can not repent often or quick enough to keep up with our wretched sinful natures. I don’t want to say that sin (and especially sexual sin) doesn’t matter because it does. It will wreck your relationships with other people (or prevent you from forming healthy one in the first place) it will damage you heath and it might even kill you but It will not come between you and God (it might however prevent you from experiencing Gods love fully but it on the other hand it might make you even more aware of Christ’s love and forgiveness for broken wretched sinners). I understand why you accuse me of “rejecting half of the New Testament”. All I can say I am confident that if I read the Bible (old and new testaments) through the lenses of the person and work of Jesus Christ I am confident that I can not go to far wrong. It amazes me how many evangelicals’ spout theology that seems to me (at this point I want to make clear I am not any kind of theologian armchair or other wise) more akin to medieval Roman Catholic semi-plagiarism then traditional Protestantism. Your distinction between active and passive sin seem too much like the old scholastic distinction between mortal and venal sins for my comfort (and I should add the even Rome considered the “sins of the flesh” to be less dangerous then the “spiritual sins” such as wrath, envy, pride and vain glory). Some kinds of sins do require church discipline (it might be necessary to discipline a promiscuous person if they were leading other christens astray for instance just as it would be necessary to ask an unscrupulous realtor who had taken advantage of a fellow parishioner to leave a congregation but these situations are thankfully few and far between).
God Bless
Steve in Toronto
P.S. I am an Anglican but I am flattered by your suspicion that I might be a Lutheran!
Hodge on 06 Jan 2010 at 4:27 pm #
Steve,
“All I can say I am confident that if I read the Bible (old and new testaments) through the lenses of the person and work of Jesus Christ I am confident that I can not go to far wrong. It amazes me how many evangelicals’ spout theology that seems to me (at this point I want to make clear I am not any kind of theologian armchair or other wise) more akin to medieval Roman Catholic semi-plagiarism then traditional Protestantism.”
The problem is that the person and work of Christ seems to be redefined to fit a revivalistic mentality of easy believism. Christ said that the only people who will be saved are those who do the will of the Father and curses those who claim to be believers, but “practice lawlessness.” That’s the Lord Jesus. Is He guilty of being semi-Pelagian? That has no relevance to this conversation whatsoever. I have never said that fallen humans have any good in them apart from Christ. The Spirit of God causes us to be born again and refrain from willful unrepentant sin. Your paradigm suggests a contradiction to your last statements. If you are right then there is no reason to EVER discipline someone. How can you say that everyone is in unrepentant sin and then discipline someone for not repenting? That is the height of hypocrisy, don’t you think? If everyone remains in unrepentant sin then discussing sin at all to believer or unbeliever is a waste of time. If all we need is to believe some facts about Jesus then that’s all we should be talking about. I don’t know why God put in place the rest of the law for our instruction if we’re never going to obey it anyway. It simply functions then as the first and second use, but there is no third use.
So I do think it is a convenient denial that allows for someone to say that homosexuality is acceptable in the church because we’re all unrepentant sinners anyway, and then go on to talk about discipline when YOU think it should be done. According to Scripture, all unrepentant sin hurts other Christians, so once again, it’s a contradiction to say that it’s few and far between and then say that everyone is in unrepentant sin. That contradictory language fortunately is not that of the Apostle Paul’s, who I think did see all things through the real Christ and the real gospel, who said,
(to be continued)
Hodge on 06 Jan 2010 at 4:27 pm #
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump [of dough]? 7 Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are [in fact] unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I [did] not at all [mean] with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler– not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within [the church]? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.
And I think we can also apply: “Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals .”
Hodge on 06 Jan 2010 at 4:36 pm #
BTW, my view of sin is based on Leviticus. There is sacrifice for unintentional sins/trespasses, which is a common idea in the ancient Near East. The penalty for willful sin/rebellion is another matter altogether. There are no sacrifices for these, which is why the writer of Hebrews speaks of willful sins this way. The sacrifice of Christ is applied to me for my unintentional sins, since I do not know what they are, but it is only applied to me for my known willful sins when I repent of them, which is the basis for the forgiveness taught in the NT. Why would God restore a relationship of lordship over me that I do not want to be restored? I agree that repentance is a lifestyle, but not that forgiveness comes apart from it.
Matthew in TX on 06 Jan 2010 at 6:10 pm #
Well stated Michael.
I understand the desire for well intentioned Christians to try and condemn sin, especially a sin that is held by a minority of sinners. It’s an easy target to attack the sin of another, knowing that you will never be tempted to sin in that way. Suppose the sin was heterosexual lust and not homosexuality… I doubt there would be as much self-righteous finger pointing.
I think as Christians, we should speak openly and honestly about sin. But at the same time, extend grace and love to others as we ourselves receive grace and love from God.
Matt 7:3-5
Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.
Nightraptor on 06 Jan 2010 at 7:08 pm #
“The sacrifice of Christ is applied to me for my unintentional sins, since I do not know what they are, but it is only applied to me for my known willful sins when I repent of them, which is the basis for the forgiveness taught in the NT.”
HUH??? I mean I agree to some extant that willful sins are worse before God then those committed out of ignorance and will be dealt with on the day of judgment accordingly. However, I think in matters of salvation the distinction is irrelevant. Sins of ignorance and willful sins are equally abominable and equally deserving of hell. Can you show me where it says that God’s grace covers all sins of ignorance while only covering the willful sins we repent of? I just don’t understand how you come to this conclusion.
On another level is a homosexual who believes that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality committing a willful sin or a sin of ignorance?
Steve in Toronto on 06 Jan 2010 at 7:43 pm #
Hello Hodge
I think you are missing something critical in your understanding of the Gospel. It’s Christ’s once and for all perfect sacrifice that saves you. Not Christ’s sacrifice plus your sexual purity, not Christ’s sacrifice plus your correct understanding of the atonement, and certainly not Christ’s perfect sacrifice plus your sincere repentance and honest desire never to sin again (thank God for this because I want to keep sinning at the same time I long to be Holy that what Luther means when he says we are simultaneously saints and sinners.). You described this understanding of the gospel as easy believism but I think your looking down the telescope from the wrong end. It’s easy to believe that you have to be sexually pure, give lots of money to the church or dedicates your life to serving the poor too be saved after that how we wrenched humans treats one another. It’s hard to believe that in the sight of God you are already perfect but it’s true. Christ’s blood has washed away your sins you have been clothed in the cloke of his perfect righteousness. This is not easy believism it’s hard believism. It took me 40 years and a brutal divorce for God to pound this simple truth threw my thick skull but I get it now and I am not letting go. In my youth I was reluctant to share my faith because I found it to be an almost unbearable burden I never felt any peace but now I am delighted to share the news that “It is finished!” Jesus did it all, all to him I owe sin had left a crimson stain but he washed me white as snow. Once you realize this simple truth it (or should I say He?) will change your life.
God Bless
Steve in Toronto
Hodge on 06 Jan 2010 at 7:46 pm #
Night,
Let me explain more clearly. One repents and beliefs and as a result has union and communion with Christ. His sins, intentional and unintentional have been forgiven and his relationship restored. Now, a person who says they have union with Christ then commits a sin. The Church rebukes him that he is in sin. He is shown his sin from the Scripture. His sin breaks his communion with God. If he has union with Christ, he will repent and restore communion with God. If he persists in his sin and does not repent, he evidences that he does not have union, since he would also be seeking communion if he had that union with Christ.
Now, if communion is always intact regardless of whether one is in sin then Church discipline makes no sense. The statements indicating that Christ will reject the so-called believer who practices lawlessness makes no sense. The statements that those who practice sin will not enter the kingdom of God make no sense. The statement that we who are born of God do not practice sin makes no sense.
So the unintentional sins, trespasses, must be forgiven by our general repentance (such as in the Lord’s prayer). Willful unrepentant sins, however, must be forgiven specifically by repentance in order for communion to be restored.
So I believe salvation (union) is always there for the Christian. Hence, unknown sins must be forgiven if he is to have communion with Christ. But broken communion must be mended through forgiveness which means through repentance. The believer will seek communion through repentance. The unbeliever will self-justify. So to answer your other question, a willful sin is committed when knowledge of the sin has been made known, but the individual does not wish to acknowledge it in repentance. So what he believes is irrelevant. If he has been rebuked, he has no excuse.
Hodge on 06 Jan 2010 at 7:53 pm #
Steve,
I believe everything you said there. The issue is not what Christ has done, but how one accesses it. You don’t believe it is automatically applied to all humans without distinction, do you? So there is a means through which this sacrifice is applied to me. I would argue that it is through union with Christ which pushes me to communion with Christ. If one does not seek communion through sexual purity, preserving life, etc., one evidences that he or she does not have communion either. There is no justification without a resulting sanctification and it all of it comes through a repentant faith. I appreciate your understanding of the work of Christ, but would also encourage you to seek out the Scriptures that refer to the means of applying that work to our lives.
Nightraptor on 06 Jan 2010 at 9:33 pm #
Hodge,
“So to answer your other question, a willful sin is committed when knowledge of the sin has been made known, but the individual does not wish to acknowledge it in repentance. So what he believes is irrelevant. If he has been rebuked, he has no excuse.”
Rebuked by who and for what? You have yet to produce a body competent to do the rebuking in a manner which the layperson can trust. I mean if I just walk up to some random guy who is homosexual and claims to be a Christian and tell them that the Bible says this is a sin (to which of course they respond that it doesn’t) does that count for purposes of being rebuked? This would be ridiculous. I mean I can run around rebuking people for attending “G” rated movies quite easily (in fact a number of Christians do – there was a protest against Harry Potter outside the theater in my town telling everyone that if they saw that movie they were going to hell – although I guess that was rated PG). All your position does is create paranoia. Someone told me that this is sin and therefore I better not do it even if it doesn’t seem to be sin from my understanding of the Bible lest I get sentenced to hell for being a “unrepentant” sinner. In fact I think I’m going to go around the ski slopes tomorrow telling everyone that snowboarding is a sin (since I’m a skier and we don’t particularly like snowboarders). Hopefully they will have your line of thinking and stop snowboarding for fear that they’ve been rebuked (and you just have to believe of course not understand) and if they don’t stop they will be an unrepentant sinner going to hell. Maybe I can even get my entire church board to do it with me to add to the authority.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but your position is so absurd as to be laughable. At it’s base you’re saying that if someone (or a group of people) tells you something is a sin you better stop it lest you be an unrepentant sinner going to hell.
Hodge on 06 Jan 2010 at 10:17 pm #
Night,
Your post doesn’t touch anything I’ve said. The local church as a manifestation of the historic Church rebukes people. Individuals aren’t given the authority to enact ecclesiastical discipline. If you don’t trust the local church then don’t go to it. Just huddle in your room and read your own Bible, but then again, you’re trusting yourself as a competent authority. By what authority do you do so? You can ask that question until you self destruct. The church has the Bible and a historical witness. You can either believe it or not. BTW, are you rebuking my position? Your argument is self defeating.
Hodge on 06 Jan 2010 at 10:19 pm #
“You have yet to produce a body competent to do the rebuking in a manner which the layperson can trust.”
I’d like you to also tell me upon what basis a layperson can trust a local body?
Nightraptor on 07 Jan 2010 at 12:39 am #
Hodge,
“I’d like you to also tell me upon what basis a layperson can trust a local body?”
That’s my point – they can’t except to discern to the best of their ability and the light God has given them which Church is most accurately representative of Christianity. The problem with this is that ones personal prejudices and conditioning are going to play a role in this and they will choose a church which aligns most closely with the Bible as they understand it. Even then few people who study theology at all actually go to a church whose theology they agree with 100% of the time. The author of this blog (CMP) goes to a Arminian church though he himself is a Calvinist. I personally go to a continuationist church though I consider myself a de facto cessationist. If I was “rebuked” by my church for not believing in continuationalism (something they would never do, but some churches might) I would not accept the rebuke and would probably find another church.
I’m not saying here that one shouldn’t submit themselves to ecclesiastical authority. I’m simply saying that such authority is not infallible and that the fact that someone does not accept a rebuke from such a authority based on a belief that such authority is mistaken does not make them a “unrepentant sinner” even if such authority is correct in their rebuke.
Nightraptor on 07 Jan 2010 at 12:50 am #
“Individuals aren’t given the authority to enact ecclesiastical discipline.”
Notice I also said group of people (i.e. the church board). Let me clarify. If a church board rules (as representatives on the historical church – however you want to define that) that snowboarding (or seeing Harry Potter) is a sin and one accepts your position then one better not go snowboarding just on the off chance that it is actually a sin and participating in snowboarding would make them a “unrepentant sinner” destined for hell since they’ve been rebuked by an ecclesiastical body. Never mind whether or not they are actually convinced or believe it is a sin – just better error on the safe side.
As to rebuking you even if I am rebuking you my rebuke carries absolutely no weight just as yours towards me unless you are convinced somehow that I’m right (which is extremely unlikely).
Hodge on 07 Jan 2010 at 4:46 am #
“I’m simply saying that such authority is not infallible and that the fact that someone does not accept a rebuke from such a authority based on a belief that such authority is mistaken does not make them a “unrepentant sinner” even if such authority is correct in their rebuke.”
No, my question was asking upon what criteria a local church would need to establish its authority to rebuke someone. The reason why I asked it because it seems clear to me that you don’t have any criteria upon which a local church can display its authority. If that is true then you don’t have any basis for saying that they lack that criteria, since you don’t know what it is in the first place. It’s like an atheist asking for evidence and never defining what evidence he is looking for.
You seem to placing authority in the layman who is to subject himself to it. I place authority in the historic Church as it manifests itself in the local church. So the local church can’t just rebuke someone for anything. But neither do I place their ability to rebuke and discipline in the person being rebuked and disciplined. That is absurd. Any church’s decision, if it is within historic orthodoxy and orthopraxis, is backed up by Christ according to Himself. NO ONE who is in rebellion is going to recognize the church’s authority. That’s a given.
Once again, it goes back to the idea that the person must know and understand instead of believe the historic witness.
“As to rebuking you even if I am rebuking you my rebuke carries absolutely no weight just as yours towards me unless you are convinced somehow that I’m right (which is extremely unlikely).”
This shows my point here. Rebuke carries no weight unless the person believes the rebuke is true. Umm, so what happened to all of those prophets who were told by God that no one was going to believe their rebuke? Their rebuke carried no weight? The authority is from God, not from the individual being rebuked. If the person being rebuked does not believe then too bad for the person being rebuked. If someone does not believe the rebuke of the Gospel itself that does not render the preaching of the Gospel invalid or without authority, regardless of whether someone runs off to another religion. The man who Paul sends into judgment in 1 Cor 5, doesn’t seem to accept the authority of the church to discipline him either. Paul still does it by the authority of Christ, whether the man can know for certainty that Paul is correct for doing so or not.
Hodge on 07 Jan 2010 at 4:56 am #
“If a church board rules (as representatives on the historical church – however you want to define that) that snowboarding (or seeing Harry Potter) is a sin and one accepts your position then one better not go snowboarding just on the off chance that it is actually a sin and participating in snowboarding would make them a “unrepentant sinner” destined for hell since they’ve been rebuked by an ecclesiastical body. Never mind whether or not they are actually convinced or believe it is a sin – just better error on the safe side.”
Night, this is getting ridiculous. There’s not historical witness to snowboarding. It’s an amoral activity. If you want an example then use the one we’re talking about. If a church rebukes a person who claims to be a believer and is practicing homosexuality, based on its own authority, derived from its agreement with the historic orthodox Christian Church through the ages, it speaks with the voice of Christ to discipline the individual. If they do not believe it, that’s their problem at that point. The church has done what is supposed to do. Now, a person might not accept their rebuke, but that’s the point of removing him from the congregation. What he does from there is his own business, but the church must deal with his corruption.
Let me give a secular analogy: If a person commits a crime and is brought before the judge, he can protest all he wants that he doesn’t recognize the authority of the judge; but he’s still going to prison nonetheless. Ecclesiastical authority is the same. A person may reject its authority to discipline on a matter like this, but that person is still going to be judged by God for the matter. The Church is simply proclaiming what God is doing and following suit.
Now, could a church be wrong? Sure, and that’s where the individual would decide if it was right or wrong, just as an individual decides whether Christianity is true or false for himself. But if he is wrong on that decision, he will answer for it in the end. When we speak of this issue, it is without a doubt that he would be wrong and the church would be right.
Steve in Toronto on 07 Jan 2010 at 10:02 am #
Hello Hodge
I am curious as to what Christian tradition you are coming out off? Are you by any chance a recent convert to Eastern Orthodoxy (I say recent because I don’t think that someone with a “cradle rocked” (eastern) Orthodox faith would be wasting there time trying to convert the evangelical theology geeks that hang out at this site). I have the same feeling I get when I talk to you that I get from to some of my more theologically liberal friends (we use the same vocabulary but the words mean completely different things) If so I feel as if I should retire from this conversation I know too many wise and godly men who respect the eastern orthodox tradition (not the least Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury) who advise me to explore the tradition more but I am just starting and some what at sea. That being said I am going to take one more stab at trying to communicate to you the great truth that Luther so beatify articulated at the dawn of the Reformation. It seems to me that you are confusing “Law” (the parts of the bible that convict us of our sinfulness and need for God) with the Gospel (The good news that God became man to save sinners). All the Law will ever do is convicting you of your need for Christ cleansing blood it can never save you. This is why the people who often seem the worst of sinners are in fact more open to the Gospel than the superficially righteous. The drunks, prostitutes and tax collectors know they need a savoir in a way that the responsible members of the middle class rarely do. The proud fallen man wants to show that he is worthy of Christ’s love and forgiveness he want to “do his part” he may even admit (as many Roman Catholics do) that what ever efforts they make to please God are only possible because of the work of Christ within them but to me they sounds to much like the Pharisee who thanks God that they are not like “other men”. The fact of the mater is that you are just like any other wretched sinner. The fact that you may have managed to avoid by the grace of God the more obvious sins of the flesh in an ironic way make you less open to the amazing message of the gospel.
Peace
Steve in Toronto
P.S. If freedom from “serious” sin was the sign of our “union with Christ” how do you explain the life of King David? He was a man with an extraordinaire intimate relationship with God who was at the same time a spectacularly accomplished sinner.
Hodge on 07 Jan 2010 at 11:34 am #
Hi Steve,
No, I’m not EO. I’m Reformed. I in now way said that we were saved by meritorious works we do. My point was that one enters salvation through a repentant faith. He sees the law condemn him (first use), he is convicted that he must come to Christ and be saved by him because of that condemnation (second use), and he now lives to God and practices righteousness exemplified in the law (third use). So I am completely open to the gospel, as I believe it whole heartedly. I don’t believe, however, that it applies to those who are unrepentant (as Christ Himself indicates). David is actually a great example of someone who was saved and fell into sin. What happened when he was finally rebuked? He was disciplined and repented. Now, if David was like Saul then there would have been a claim that he knew God, but it would have been rendered invalid by his lack of repentance.
I think you’re reading me as saying that I’m without sin or something. Nothing could be further from the truth; but if I persist in unrepentant sin then my claim to love and know Christ is a hoax.
I’ll let Luther sum it up for me:
Instead, faith is God’s work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and MAKES US COMPLETELY DIFFERENT people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever.
Hodge on 07 Jan 2010 at 11:37 am #
BTW, Steve, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your meekness in sharing the gospel. I would just want to make sure every aspect of it is understood before applying it to this issue. Take care.
C. Barton on 07 Jan 2010 at 12:22 pm #
I would like to offer a sidelight on the concept of “mortifying the flesh”, as it applies in this topic. when pride rules a house, we might say it is the death of humility. Or, when crazy conspiracy theories rule, we might say it is the death of common sense, etc.
In this way I am allegorizing the “death which comes through sin . . .”; from the scriptures it is clear that when we sow to the flesh (invest our time and soul into sinful habits and works) it ultimately is the death of love, discernment, and the soul itself.
However, investing our whole heart and soul into doing good, we will see the weakening and death of pride, hatred, lust, etc., so that the tendency to sin is finally nullified for all practical purposes.
This is like cleaning a dish before you serve food on it. Our lives are sanctified by Christ so that He can be more at home in us, and cause the fruit of the Spirit (peace, joy, love, etc.) to flourish in our lives.
Who, if they knew how beautiful this could be, would want to stubbornly hold onto any sin that would prevent this maturity in Christ?
Perhaps Michael will write a blog about “struggling with sin” as a believer.
Steve in Toronto on 07 Jan 2010 at 12:53 pm #
Thanks Hodge
I think you’re the first person who has ever described me as meek. If you’re a member of a good reformed church I am going to relax. If you’re paying attention I am sure they will straighten you out about what the gospel means (that is assuming you are out of line). There is no question that God’s grace will transform our lives but not necessarily in ways that are obvious to other Christistion’s. My first marriage failed because my wife (who had been converted by the ministry of Francis Schaffer at Swiss L’Abri and who I had meet at a Dutch Reformed Graduate school) fell back into drug addection after almost 20 years of sobriety and left me. Through out the last 7 hellish years of our 13 year marriage I never once questioned the authenticity of her faith (in many ways she was more orthodox then me) but she was/is (at least for now) completely powerless to overcome her addiction. May be if she was a better Christian she would have been able to conquer narcotics but it may be that God needed to bring this very beautiful, gifted and highly intelligent woman (she was both a very fine painter and an aspiring philosopher who never went anywhere without her Greek new testament) low to teach her the real meaning of his love and forgiveness. It may interest you that our church never put her under disciple however she did eventually leave it of her own accord when our priest who had been counseling us for almost 5 years testified in court for my defense that I contrary to her paranoid delusions was not an abusive spouse. This priest (who is still a very dear friend) felt (and I agree with him even though it meant that I had to leave his church for one in a neibouring parish) that he was one of the last links she had left to sanity and he had to do everything he could to help her find her way out of the chasm she had fallen into. It was this experience and the joy that I found in my second marriage and new family with a woman that I had ironically met 20 years earlier at that very same Reformed Graduate school (She had been converted at English L’Abri- I know it’s a small world) that finally convinced me of my total helplessness in the face of mine (and other peoples) sin and the infinite power of Gods love and forgiveness. I hope that you to discover this fundamental truth through a less painful process.
Peace
Steve in Toronto
Marvin the Martian on 07 Jan 2010 at 2:19 pm #
David is actually a great example of someone who was saved and fell into sin. What happened when he was finally rebuked? He was disciplined and repented.
Hodge,
I want to ask a question to you, or any one else who can answer this.
I know that when you speak of David being disciplined and repenting, you speak specifically of his sin regarding Bathsheba and the slaying of Bathsheba’s loyal husband to cover up their affair.
Some background regarding my question:
The affair with Bathsheba clearly wasn’t David’s only sin. In fact, given the number of wives/sexual partners David had, I think it is safe to say that David was sexually addicted. Look at this telling passage in 1st Kings Chapter 1.
“1 When King David was old and well advanced in years, he could not keep warm even when they put covers over him. 2 So his servants said to him, “Let us look for a young virgin to attend the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm.”
3 Then they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful girl and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. 4 The girl was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no intimate relations with her.”
David is on his deathbead, and the first thought the servants have “lets get a young lady?” That David is too ill to actually have relations with her doesn’t change the fact that the servants were acting with the thought process that David would be cheered up with a young virgin to lay with.
My question is this:
Given that we know that God does not like such sexual debauchery, how do we deal with what I appears to be David’s serial sexual sin? I don’t think we can say that David was ever in control of his sexual appitite.
Hodge on 07 Jan 2010 at 2:42 pm #
Hi Marvin,
1. I don’t think we can extrapolate from polygamy and this passage that David had a sexual addiction. Men have a sexual addiction. That doesn’t mean they need to indulge it in a sinful manner. Polygamy is not a sin in the OT due to the ancient boundaries of adultery. Those boundaries are expanded in the NT because they reflect what God intended better at creation, but the previous boundaries which include polygamy are not against God’s boundaries, since they are one and the same in the OT. BTW, It’s God who gives David his plurality of wives in the first place.
2. If that is the case then really we are left with Bathsheba as a single example of David indulging in a sexual activity that is beyond those boundaries. The fact that the servants decided to place a woman with the king to keep him warm in bed is not an anomaly. They didn’t have heat or bed warmers, and if his body heat was not providing enough to warm him then I frankly don’t see any other option. The Scripture is clear that he had no sexual relations with her, and that she was a virgin (i.e., she was not bound to another man as Bathsheba was).
3. We are told of a couple other times David sinned, and each time God disciplines him and he repents of it. To say that David was in perpetual sin that went unanswered is to speculate from silence, not only what is not there in the text, but also what is contradictory to it. If David was in unrepentant sin, God rebukes and disciplines him, and he repents. That’s the pattern the Scripture provides of his life. Any other suggestion is to ignore this fact of what is said for what is not said.
Steve in Toronto on 07 Jan 2010 at 3:01 pm #
Saint Augustine abandoned a woman who was for all practical purposes his wife to become a Bishop, both Martin Luther and St. John Chrysostom were Anti-Semites, John Calvin essentially held the coats for the men who burned a man alive because he had heterodox views on the trinity and had the audacity to suggest that only adults who had made public profession of faith ought to be baptized and Charles Spurgeon was a gluten. God has built and is building his church out of sinners we should all be grateful for this fact because if it were not so there would be no room in the church for us!
Steve in Toronto
Steve in Toronto on 07 Jan 2010 at 3:39 pm #
Any one how thinks that David was a model of Sexual purity ought to check out 2 Samuel 5:13: after he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him. Not to mention the admittedly very ambiguous contents of Samuel 1:2: I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women. And finally I don’t think that it’s was an accident that his favorite son Solomon went off the rails in almost exactly the same way 1 Kings 11:1-3: King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.
Hodge on 07 Jan 2010 at 5:29 pm #
1 Sam 12:7 Thus says the Lord God of Israel, `It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 `I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if [that had been] too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!
2 Sam 22:20 “He also brought me forth into a broad place; He rescued me, because He delighted in me. 21 “The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness; According to the cleanness of my hands He has recompensed me. 22 “For I have kept the ways of the Lord, And have not acted wickedly against my God. 23 “For all His ordinances [were] before me, And [as for] His statutes, I did not depart from them. 24 “I was also blameless toward Him, And I kept myself from my iniquity. 25 “Therefore the Lord has recompensed me according to my righteousness, According to my cleanness before His eyes. 26 “With the kind You show Yourself kind, With the blameless You show Yourself blameless; 27 With the pure You show Yourself pure, And with the perverted You make Yourself confusing.
Question: Should we speculate as to whether David was enslaved to his sin and the same as Saul, or should we take both his word and the Word of the Spirit who displays him as a repentant sinner who could then be seen as righteous and one who kept all of God’s statutes?
BTW, I don’t view any of those men you mentioned as being in sin. I think your imposing certain modern sensibilities on these men. I’d like you to show me how any of them broke Scriptural commands. They’re not modern Westerners, that’s for sure; but to slander them as unrighteous for this reason, I think, takes a bit of modern hubris.
And John laid on Jesus’ chest while eating. Are you going to pretend that loving friendship is sexual perversion? I think this is more our perverted culture. To the unclean all things are unclean.
Hodge on 07 Jan 2010 at 6:35 pm #
I also thought this was pertinent:
1 Cor 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. 6 Now these things happened as examples for us, that we should not crave evil things, as they also craved. 7 And do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and stood up to play.” 8 Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. 9 Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. 10 Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.
Nightraptor on 07 Jan 2010 at 7:16 pm #
Hodge,
I’m kinda exiting this conversation because it’s apparent that both me and you are equally hard headed. You think I’m a hard headed deceived individual and I think likewise. Yet I still want one question answered because I’m confused. Does one sin for which we haven’t repented sentence you to hell??
Let’s give a scenario. Let’s say me and my brother are driving down the road and we are having an argument. Things are heated and some things are said which shouldn’t be said and are sinful. The car goes off the highway and hits a tree killing me instantly. Am I going to hell?
Steve in Toronto on 07 Jan 2010 at 7:20 pm #
Hello Hodge
There are none as blind as those who refuse to see. I am giving up on this dialog as well. If you feel so lead print it out and show it to your minister ask him what he thinks. The Theology that you are articulating does not seem to have any relationship to my understanding of what it means to be reformed but what do I know I am an Anglican after all. God bless and I hope one day that you will discover the joy that I found when I stopped trying of earn my salvation and just accepted for what it was a free gift.
God Bless
You’re Brother in Christ
Steve in Toronto
Sue on 07 Jan 2010 at 7:36 pm #
Okay, this is where I get to die laughing.
Hodge,
Read this to yourself,
“They didn’t have heat or bed warmers, and if his body heat was not providing enough to warm him then I frankly don’t see any other option. The Scripture is clear that he had no sexual relations with her, and that she was a virgin (i.e., she was not bound to another man as Bathsheba was).”
How much kinder to have found a young and warm widow, a woman who was not without some acquaintance with the male body. Who would give their 14 year old virgin to an ancient and decaying king?
Sometimes the voice of women, the thoughts of women on these things is just not considered.
Of course, David got a virgin – only the best for a king! This did give her an important role after the king died – but really!
Men need to go through the back channels of their brains with a pipe cleaner sometimes, because women are reading these things.
Sue on 07 Jan 2010 at 7:46 pm #
PS A bed warmer is made from a round smooth rock placed in the fire. When it is hot you take it out and wrap it in a blanket. Then you put it in the bed. It is stone age technology.
Steve in Toronto on 07 Jan 2010 at 8:07 pm #
I would have suggested a big shaggy dog. It might even have reminded the grand old man of his vigorous youth as a Sheppard when he no doubt slept with his dogs to keep warn during those long cold nights watching the sheep. But sadly my suspicion was that his loyal servants were trying to remind the old man of another aspect of his “vigorous youth”
Hodge on 07 Jan 2010 at 10:47 pm #
“Does one sin for which we haven’t repented sentence you to hell??”
Night, of course not. Our union with Christ saves us from all sin. My point is that if you enjoyed murdering people, the Church rebuked you and told you to stop immediately, and you kept murdering people anyway, then that evidences that you do not have union with Christ. Anyone who does not have union with Christ is not saved. So unrepentant sin is an indicator of damnation, not the cause of it.
Hodge on 07 Jan 2010 at 10:53 pm #
Steve,
I feel like you aren’t really reading anything I’m writing.
“God bless and I hope one day that you will discover the joy that I found when I stopped trying of earn my salvation and just accepted for what it was a free gift.”
So saying that one must repent, as Peter proclaimed in Acts 2, is earning one’s own salvation instead of accepting the free gift. I keep telling you that this is about accessing that free gift, and you keep coming back at me with “but it’s a free gift.” I know it is, through faith. The question then becomes what is the nature of saving faith. The Scripture tells us it is not the kind that lacks repentance. I don’t know how to be any more clearer than that.
It’s like asking how we get on the airplane, and you keep telling me to not worry because the airplane will take us to Florida. Great. How do we get on? But the airplane will get us there. I know, but how do we get on? I feel like it’s a bad rendition of Dude, Where’s My Car.
Hodge on 07 Jan 2010 at 10:56 pm #
Sue, what an honor to have kept warm the Messianic king who represented the Lord Himself for the glory of God. Your problem isn’t with what I said. It’s with the Scripture’s description itself.
Hodge on 07 Jan 2010 at 11:07 pm #
“PS A bed warmer is made from a round smooth rock placed in the fire. When it is hot you take it out and wrap it in a blanket. Then you put it in the bed. It is stone age technology.”
Thanks Sue. I wasn’t aware that these were used in ancient Israel. Can you provide some data for me so I can put it in my files? The bed warmer I was referring to of course was the one heated with coals in a metal container, but my point was that this was not available. A warm stone would warm a person of average temperature for about twenty minutes tops; but I would like to see the data you have. Ancient Israelites used the brazier in the house that they had to huddle around to keep warm. I am not aware of any practice of putting hot stones in beds with sick people, but once again, I would love to have that data for my files. Thanks.
Nightraptor on 07 Jan 2010 at 11:08 pm #
Hodge,
Is repentance a work? and if not why not? It seems that it is to me at least. Plus what is repentance in your book? I have listened to probably 100 different people give 80 different answers to what the proper understanding of metanoia is.
Hodge on 07 Jan 2010 at 11:08 pm #
“I would have suggested a big shaggy dog. It might even have reminded the grand old man of his vigorous youth as a Sheppard when he no doubt slept with his dogs to keep warn during those long cold nights watching the sheep. But sadly my suspicion was that his loyal servants were trying to remind the old man of another aspect of his “vigorous youth”
And where would this husky sheep dog come from in ancient Israel?
Hodge on 07 Jan 2010 at 11:10 pm #
Night,
repentance is a work as faith is a work. Both are given by God according to the Scripture as free gifts to His elect. The best definition I have is the Scripture’s: “Cease to do evil, learn to do good.” In other words, it’s a turning away from sin and a turning to a life of pleasing God instead.
Sue on 08 Jan 2010 at 1:03 am #
Hodge,
You wrote,
“They didn’t have heat or bed warmers,”
- and I am simply pointing out that the hot brick did not need to be “invented.” It was available.
In any case, I hope you don’t think that God approves of everything that happened in scripture.
You wrote,
“I don’t view any of those men you mentioned as being in sin. I think your imposing certain modern sensibilities on these men. I’d like you to show me how any of them broke Scriptural commands. They’re not modern Westerners, that’s for sure; but to slander them as unrighteous for this reason, I think, takes a bit of modern hubris.”
So you are saying that there was a different morality in those days. There was no law against the rape of an unmarried girl either. Does that make it okay?
There were laws against things that we think are okay, and there are no laws where we now believe it is necessary. The moral code was different then from ours today, whether we like it or not.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 08 Jan 2010 at 1:28 am #
Can Homosexuals Be Christians?
Are we talking about whether celibate or struggling to be celibate homosexuals can be Christians or are we talking about whether active, unrepentant homosexuals can be Christians?
Hodge on 08 Jan 2010 at 3:31 am #
“You wrote,
“They didn’t have heat or bed warmers,”
- and I am simply pointing out that the hot brick did not need to be “invented.” It was available.”
So were Panda-fur blankets, but they weren’t used in ancient Israel. That’s my point.
“So you are saying that there was a different morality in those days. There was no law against the rape of an unmarried girl either. Does that make it okay?”
No, I’m saying that I wouldn’t see them in sin if they were living today in societies that viewed things this way. That’s why I asked for the Scriptural commands that were broken by these men. They broke none. The only taboos they broke were those of our postmodern culture.
Hodge on 08 Jan 2010 at 3:32 am #
Truth,
The latter.
Sue on 08 Jan 2010 at 10:08 am #
Hodge,
Panda-fur ??? Are you saying that bricks and stones were confined to eastern Asia and could not be found in Israel?
“No, I’m saying that I wouldn’t see them in sin if they were living today in societies that viewed things this way. That’s why I asked for the Scriptural commands that were broken by these men. They broke none. The only taboos they broke were those of our postmodern culture.”
So morality is relative to the norms of the society then? There is no scriptural command against raping an unmarried girl. Does that make it not sinful to deo that in ancient Hebrew but immoral now? Is is only immoral to rape a virgin or beat your wife because the laws of our society say so?
Truth Unites... and Divides on 08 Jan 2010 at 11:15 am #
Thanks Hodge.
Please let me restate the issue just for my Johnny-Come-Lately sake:
“Can Active, Unrepentant Homosexuals Be Christians?”
Some people say Yes (among them CMP). Some people say No (among them Hodge).
Is this an accurate, but very brief summation?
———————–
Let me state the following claim instead and see whether there is any dissent:
Active, Unrepentant Homosexuals who profess to be Christians are committing sexual sin and are in disobedience to the Divinely Inspired Word of God.
Any dissent to the Biblical declaration/commandment that same-sex behavior is clearly sin?
Hodge on 08 Jan 2010 at 11:36 am #
Sue,
My point isn’t that they don’t have materials in ancient Israel to use them in the ways that people from other cultures use them. My point is that if that is not a practice in ancient Israel then why condemn them for using a practice that is? They could have caught a bear and stuffed King David inside of its warm carcass like Han Solo stuffed Luke inside of a Taun Taun. Afterall, bears were available. That is a woefully inadequate criticism of this practice. The best possible option is to warm him with another person. I sincerely doubt that this young woman would have seen it as an awful thing instead of a great privilege. I do think you’re imposing your experiences on the text.
“No, I’m saying that I wouldn’t see them in sin if they were living today in societies that viewed things this way. That’s why I asked for the Scriptural commands that were broken by these men. They broke none. The only taboos they broke were those of our postmodern culture.”
So morality is relative to the norms of the society then? There is no scriptural command against raping an unmarried girl. Does that make it not sinful to deo that in ancient Hebrew but immoral now? Is is only immoral to rape a virgin or beat your wife because the laws of our society say so?”
Sue, really? I just said that what you are considering morality is modern taboo, not real morality. So, Yes, taboo is culturally conditioned. Scriptural morality is not. Actually, there are morals in Scripture that would condemn rape of a virgin. I’m assuming you’re viewing the Deuteronomic law code as supporting the practice? I think it’s clear from Gen 34 that Israel views it as an awful crime. I also think the Deuteronomic code is attempting to provide the best recompense for the woman who is raped. I’d like to see where the Scripture allows one to beat his wife? Even beating his animal in Scripture is viewed as evil. The wife all the more so. So I don’t think you have an argument there.
Hodge on 08 Jan 2010 at 11:37 am #
Truth,
I’m not sure everyone would sign on to the statement, but I think most would. The issue is whether from this observation a homosexual who remained in unrepentant sin against the Word of God can still be considered a Christian.
Hodge on 08 Jan 2010 at 11:43 am #
Oh, and yes, Truth, I think you summed it up well.
Nightraptor on 08 Jan 2010 at 12:21 pm #
TUAD,
I don’t think anyone so far has stated that they believe homosexuality isn’t a sin and that Scripture isn’t clear on this issue. However, as stated by me and somewhat conceded by Hodge there are some very sophisticated arguments out there which attempt to show that Scripture doesn’t teach homosexuality is a sin. It takes some significant seminary type education in Greek, hermeneutics and other subjects to properly refute these arguments though they are refutable quite easily by someone with this training.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 08 Jan 2010 at 1:30 pm #
NightRaptor: “I don’t think anyone so far has stated that they believe homosexuality isn’t a sin and that Scripture isn’t clear on this issue.”
Thanks NightRaptor. That sets a foundation for something I may want to address later.
However, I should like to ask something that I think is perhaps even more pertinent.
What’s the impact to and the impact of the Christian who informs an active, unrepentant homosexual that s/he (i.e., the active, unrepentant homosexual) is a Christian when at the time of Judgment the active, unrepentant homosexual is cast into Hell, and due primarily to the active, unrepentant homosexual sin?
Is it okay for a well-meaning, well-intentioned Christian to provide false assurance?
I would think that the Enemy delights in well-meaning, well-intentioned Christians providing false assurance to folks who think they are followers of Christ, but who will eventually share Hell with Satan.
I think there’s a danger there. And while I’m fully cognizant that one should not make folks nervous about their assurance of salvation, I think the more pernicious error is to give false assurances to folks, particularly to active, unrepentant homosexuals who believe that they are Christians, particularly when affirmed in that belief by well-meaning, well-intentioned genuine Christians.
Sue on 08 Jan 2010 at 2:44 pm #
Hodge,
I am claiming that wrapping bricks and stones in cloth is not a technology that would not leave a trace so we cannot establish that it was used. However, we can assume that something of this order was always available. for the common man.
The law is silent on what happens to a girl who is raped unless we assume that she was to marry her assailant. Even in the NT there is no comment or provision for the divorce of a woman from a violent husband.
But there is a penalty for the man who assaults a wife, that is, who assaults a woman who belongs to another man. To assault and rape a virgin is surely a crime less severly regulated than the rape of someone else’s wife.
We cannot live by these laws, nor can we judge our morality be these laws. We can measure our morality against the law of Christ, to treat others we would be treated.
Nightraptor on 08 Jan 2010 at 3:03 pm #
TUAD and Hodge,
I think at it’s base the disconnect between us is a different understanding of salvation. Maybe I’m wrong but both of you seem to hold to the Lordship Salvation perspective. I doubt this is an argument which can be solved here – however CMP has posted on this elsewhere and for what it’s worth I agree with his perspective.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/11/lordship-salvation-free-grace-and-easy-believism/
Truth Unites... and Divides on 08 Jan 2010 at 3:21 pm #
NightRaptor,
You may well be right! There are probably different understandings of salvation which then proceed to underly the whole “Can an active, unrepentant homosexual be a Christian?” discussion.
Be that as it may, and as a hopefully no-offense hypothetical, it doesn’t seem like a good thing if the Lord might one day say to NightRaptor something like the following:
“You have frequently given false assurances to numerous active, unrepentant homosexuals that they were Christians, giving them cause to believe that they were Heaven-bound Christians when, in fact, they were not. Although you were well-intentioned and well-meaning, perhaps even thinking that you were fulfilling the Great Commission, the fact is is that you weren’t. You actually did the opposite. As a result, you….”
Hodge on 08 Jan 2010 at 3:22 pm #
Sue,
“I am claiming that wrapping bricks and stones in cloth is not a technology that would not leave a trace so we cannot establish that it was used. However, we can assume that something of this order was always available. for the common man.”
Neither does it leave a trace in the literature, which means it’s an argument from silence. It’s not about technology. It’s about cultural use. I don’t want to really go back and forth on it though, since it has little to do with the thread. I don’t see placing a virgin with David to keep him warm as a bad thing in that culture, regardless of the technology that someone may use in Mongolia vs. ancient Israel.
“The law is silent on what happens to a girl who is raped unless we assume that she was to marry her assailant.”
No, it’s not. She has a choice to marry her assailant so that she will be cared for, or stay with her father, who then must be paid by the assailant, once again, so that she is cared for. The Deuteronomic code is concerned about economic justice for those who have been wronged. It wants to make sure that real justice, rather than vengeance, is served.
So, we can get our morals from these laws in the sense that they provide a better justice than simply killing everyone for their crimes.
“To assault and rape a virgin is surely a crime less severly regulated than the rape of someone else’s wife.”
In the ancient Near Eastern world, that’s true. I’m not arguing that we apply the codes to our modern laws, but that the justice set down is consistent with the morality we find in the rest of Scripture. It is concerned first for the victim. What happens to the assailant is secondary to this concern. A person who rapes another man’s wife commits adultery and must be put to death (as per all ancient Near Eastern law codes). A man who defiles a virgin has committed a horrible crime, and now it must be determined whether he should die for stealing a father’s daughter from him, or if he should be made to pay in order to support her in some way. The code falls down on the latter.
“We cannot live by these laws, nor can we judge our morality be these laws. We can measure our morality against the law of Christ, to treat others we would be treated.”
This is a false dichotomy between the law of Christ to do unto others and the law of justice found in Deuteronomy. The golden rule is meant to display the spirit behind the law, not undo the law (see Christ’s statements in Matt 5:17-20). So I disagree that we should not take our instruction of how the golden rule works out in every day situations in which evil manifests itself.
Hodge on 08 Jan 2010 at 3:29 pm #
Yes, Night, this is the issue here. Michael, being from Dallas, rejects Lordship, or what I would call the historic Reformed view, of salvation. As I have argued here, of course, it is impossible to obey the NT command to discipline church members if one is to take the “free grace” idea consistently. Hence, in Michael’s view, homosexuals should be allowed to be homosexuals in the church assembly, and at some point, hopefully God will convict them and change them. I don’t see how what Paul says about disassociation works out very well for that position.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 08 Jan 2010 at 3:37 pm #
Hodge, #142: “Michael, being from Dallas, rejects Lordship, or what I would call the historic Reformed view, of salvation.”
CMP, #45: “Legalistic Christians can certainly be Christians, but they are, in my understanding of Scripture, the worst kind.”
Hodge, given what CMP says in #45 I can see why he rejects the historic Reformed view of salvation. Having said that, I think there’s a definite possibility that he may be conflating “Lordship Salvation” with Legalism.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 08 Jan 2010 at 3:41 pm #
And if one can’t even agree and settle on what Salvation is and how it’s obtained or received, then isn’t the question of
“Can active, unrepentant homosexuals be Christians?”
a bit premature?
Hodge on 08 Jan 2010 at 3:49 pm #
Truth, Michael would have to bear that out; but I did want to correct one idea. No one goes to Hell because he does not repent of a specific willful sin. His being unrepentant of a specific sin is what evidences that He has not truly repented in the first place and does not have a salvific relationship with Christ.
Hodge on 08 Jan 2010 at 3:51 pm #
Truth, you’re right on that. If the lordship question is not settled then neither can this issue seem to come to a consistent solution either.
Nightraptor on 08 Jan 2010 at 4:15 pm #
And thus we’ve come to the impasse. If one accepts the Lordship Salvation view then Michael is wrong. If one accepts the views of CMP and myself then this post is correct. I guess we could start the Lordship vs. Easy believism debate which has been debated ad nauseum by individuals much smarter and better educated then myself without conclusion. On the other hand we could just recognize that this is the root of our differences on this issue and leave it at that. Having debated this issue ad nauseum before I’m voting for the later.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 08 Jan 2010 at 4:17 pm #
Glad to help bring this question to closure.
(As result of non-closure on a more primary question.)
Steve in Toronto on 08 Jan 2010 at 4:27 pm #
Hello Hodge
I may be totally out in left field on this (it is possible I am an Anglican after all) but I assosiate “lordship salvation” with the pietistic or holiness traditions and my understanding of these traditions is that they are overwhelming Arminian in their theology. Classical Reformed thinking (and to a large extent Lutheran thinking as well) is Monergistic since it is God alone who does the saving the whole question is moot; you are either or our out your personal holiness really has nothing to do with the process. If it not too personal a question would you mind telling me if you are you a member of a traditional reformed denomination (such as the PCA, OPC, RCA or PCUSA) and if so for how long? Frankly you just don’t sound very reformed to me.
Peace
Steve in Toronto
Hodge on 08 Jan 2010 at 5:37 pm #
Hi Steve, I’m OPC. I’d say for about ten years now. I think I don’t sound very reformed to you because you’re confusing a few issues. Monergism has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I believe all repentance is brought about by God through the individual, and apart from God doing this work, the person would remain in unrepentant sin.
The holiness school’s have an idea of holiness that is Pelagian/Semi-Pelagian, and in my mind, legalistic. Once again, that has only a fraction of relevance to what we’re discussing here.
I think you may be confusing the idea that faith is passive with the idea that faith does not contain an act of repentance. Faith is passive in that we are not the ones producing it. God is.
The idea that your personal disposition toward sin has nothing to do with God’s decree in action, I think, is misguided. God’s election brings us to repentance.
I’d direct you here: http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Lordship-of-Christ/
Do R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, James Boice, Michael Horton sound Reformed?
In fact, I would suggest reading “Christ the Lord” edited by Horton. I think that sums up nicely what I’ve been attempting in my fallibility to communicate here.
Hodge on 08 Jan 2010 at 5:49 pm #
My last question would be: Does Calvin sound Reformed?
“Hence we infer that the doctrine of repentance ought always to accompany the promise of salvation; for in no other way can men taste the goodness of God than by abhorring themselves on account of their sins, and renouncing themselves and the world. And indeed no man will sincerely desire to be reconciled to God and to obtain pardon of sins till he is moved by a true and earnest repentance.
By three forms of expression he describes the nature of repentance, — first, “Let the wicked man forsake, his way;” secondly, “The unrighteous man his thoughts;” thirdly, “Let him return to the Lord.” Under the word way he includes the whole course of life, and accordingly demands that they bring forth the fruits of righteousness as witnesses of their newness of life. By adding the word thoughts he intimates that we must not only correct outward actions, but must begin with the heart; for although in the opinion of men we appear to change our manner of life for the better, yet we shall have made little proficiency if the heart be not changed.
Thus repentance embraces a change of the whole man; for in man we view inclinations, purposes, and then works. The works of men are visible, but the root within is concealed. This must first be changed, that it may afterwards yield fruitful works. We must first wash away from the mind all uncleanness, and conquer wicked inclinations, that outward testimonies may afterwards be added. And if any man boast that he has been changed, and yet live as he was wont to do, it will be vain-boasting; for both are requisite, conversion of the heart, and change of life.
Besides, God does not command us to return to him before he has applied a remedy to revolt; for hypocrites will willingly endure that we praise what is good and right, provided that they be at liberty to crouch amidst their filth. But we can have nothing to do with God if we do not withdraw from ourselves, especially when we have been alienated by wicked variance; and therefore self-denial goes before, that it may lead us to God.” (Commentary on Isa 55:7).
“The Spirit of God calls us to repentance everywhere, in the law, the prophets, and the gospel; at the same time He also defines what He understands by the terms when He orders us to be renewed in our hearts, to be circumcised to the Lord, to be washed, and to cease from wicked pursuits, to loose the bond of iniquity bound within us, to rend our hearts and not our garments, to put off the old man, to renounce our own desires, and to be renewed in the image of God; besides enumerating, as the fruits of repentance, acts of charity and the exercise of a pious and holy life.” (Antidote to the Articles of Paris)
I would also urge you to read Calvin’s commentary on 1 Cor 5:11-13, which you can do online.
Sue on 08 Jan 2010 at 6:10 pm #
Re #131
Hodge,
The couple who commit adultery are stoned, but the virgin who is raped can either marry her assailant or stay with her father who will be paid money. Perhaps she will never marry.
These kinds of laws have laid the foundation for unspeakable suffering. Note also that the wife who leaves her husband for reasons other than adultery, or even because of it, is often shunned.
I cannot imagine what you find good about all this and I mourn that there are people around with so little sensitivity to the “post modern notion” that virgins should not be given to old men.
I will say good bye, but I do feel that your overall views on the difference between taboo and immoralilty speak to the issue of homosexuality.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 08 Jan 2010 at 6:16 pm #
Hodge,
Are you interacting with staunch egalitarian Sue? I hope for your sake that it’s some other Sue, and not staunch egalitarian Sue.
Hodge on 08 Jan 2010 at 6:19 pm #
Sue,
I’m not sure what you’re proposing that’s better than what God laid down for the raped virgin? Would you kill the assailant like the one who is killed for adultery? A raped married woman is not killed for adultery, you switched the offenses there. She has her husband to continue to support her. The virgin who cannot now be married has no one to support her, but her father or the assailant. The father may not be able to support her, but she may not want to marry the assailant. Hence, God keeps the assailant alive and instead requires that he pay the father so that the girl is taken care of. I know it’s crazy for a postmodern to wrap her head around, but a lot of young women were concerned about survival through marriage more than romance and the twentieth century American dream. God is therefore addressing here the primary concern, not all concerns. So I think His justice is displayed well through these laws. God is good. So that’s what I find good about them. I also find it good that God makes this young virgin a queen after she has glorified Him by easing the affliction of a dying Messianic king. I guess I just can’t understand why postmoderns can’t see good beyond their little boxes.
Hodge on 08 Jan 2010 at 6:22 pm #
Truth,
I really like Sue actually. I’ve enjoyed talking to her. I find her to be very intelligent, and respectable when speaking to others of other viewpoints. I do think her feminism taints everything, and makes it difficult to see something as appropriate from another perspective; but life would be boring without those who challenge us, yes?
Joe Dallas on 08 Jan 2010 at 6:26 pm #
I think Michael’s post nails the question of whether or not a Christian in sin can still be positioned in Christ (yes he can) while being wrong in critical parts of his life (such as, if he engages in homosexual acts) He may be carnal, or deceived, or in rebellion, none of which necessarily invalidate his salvation.
If we take the position that salvation can be lost, then it still seems that only God knows at what point a person crosses the line and loses his standing in Christ. Or, if we take the “once saved always saved” position, then clearly, if a person has been born again, his salvation remains intact, regardless of the sin he may continue to practice.
But the Church is still required to discipline its members if they continue in deliberate sexual sin, whether or not the individual considers it to be a sin. And as someone who’s ministered to homosexually inclined people for years, and who himself was once a pro-homosexual activist, I wish we heard more clear, ongoing teaching about the struggle between the flesh and the spirit, Pauline theology, the old versus the new nature, etc. That would provide us with a better context for framing these issues, and would certainly help the many believers who experience ongoing temptations and struggles of any sort.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 08 Jan 2010 at 6:27 pm #
Hodge,
You’re a masochist!
That being jokingly said, I do appreciate you being the “sacrificial lamb”, so to speak, in choosing to interact with her.
I do agree with you when you write: “I do think her feminism taints everything, and makes it difficult to see something as appropriate from another perspective”, but then she would turn around and say biblical patriarchy taints everything.
Oh well. Anyways, you’re doing a good job trading back-and-forths with tar baby.
You go, boy!
Sue on 08 Jan 2010 at 6:56 pm #
First, you rightly point out that I mixed the cases. The rapist of a betrothed women is stoned and the rapist of a virgin marries her or pays money.
I know it’s crazy for a postmodern to wrap her head around, but a lot of young women were concerned about survival through marriage more than romance
I am not talking about romance but about violence or perhaps disregard. This is way off topic so I am going to break now. Thanks.
Hodge on 08 Jan 2010 at 7:15 pm #
Sue,
And I gave reasons why the execution of the former is just and the punishment of the latter is just. If God had prescribed the former punishment for the latter, her assailant would be dead . . . and so would she, from starvation or exposure.
Disregard for what? Her feelings? Her feeling would be tortured with thoughts that she would not be able to get married now that this rape had occurred. I think a good example of this is with Tamar’s concerns with Amnon leaving her; but we are getting far from the post, so I bid you, Adieu.
Sue on 08 Jan 2010 at 8:01 pm #
Hodge,
I think you pretty much have the gist of what it meant to be a woman in those days.
Gratefully egalitarian
,
Sue
Martin Jack on 09 Jan 2010 at 12:40 am #
In all this talk about repentance from Hodge, I hear very little said about trusting in the blood of Christ. Its all about what we do, but not about what Christ has done for us.
Hodge on 09 Jan 2010 at 12:59 am #
Martin,
I didn’t mention the Trinity’s participation in our salvation either. That’s not what we’re talking about. This isn’t a thread dealing with every aspect of our justification. It’s asking whether someone willingly practicing what is known to be an abominable sin, unrepentant even after rebuked and disciplined, can be considered a Christian. Please don’t confuse the issues.
And BTW, Is trusting something we do?
Truth Unites... and Divides on 09 Jan 2010 at 2:27 am #
Joe Dallas: “But the Church is still required to discipline its members if they continue in deliberate sexual sin, whether or not the individual considers it to be a sin.”
Yes. And this issue is so serious that if biblical resolution is not effectively achieved in a timely manner for the loving administration of ecclesial discipline, then biblical separation is mandated for church-dividing, denomination-dividing, communion-dividing action. Unity is premised and grounded on Biblical Truth. Papering over unrepentant sin to achieve false unity is unbiblical.
Hence, you see the church splits and property disputes and fights in the PCUSA, the ELCA, TEC, and other churches and denominations. Dioceses have withdrawn from the Episcopal Church. The Anglican Communion is fracturing over the lack of ecclesial discipline upon wayward provinces.
And all these divides are caused by the active and unrepentant GLBT advocates and the timid cowardice of past leadership that was tasked to rein in and discipline heresy and apostasy so as to prevent the leaven from infecting the Body.
Now biblical separation from the Enemy’s cancer is mandated.
P.S. Observation: In the liberal Protestant denominations which ordain active, unrepentant homosexuals… they were all preceded by the approval to ordain women.
Conversely, not one conservative Protestant denomination which refuses to ordain women have knowingly ordained an active, unrepentant homosexual to the clergy.
Steve in Toronto on 09 Jan 2010 at 1:29 pm #
Hello Hodge
I owe you an Apology. As I mentioned I don’t describe myself as reformed (I like the word “Reformational” better but I have worshiped at a number of reformed churches where members of my extended family have made there homes (the most prominent of these is my sister in law’s church Redeemer PCA in NYC and the church where my father was a ruling elder Christ Community PCA in Nashville). I was also a member for many years of Little Trinty Anglican Chuch in Toronto and was blessed on a number of memorable occasions by the presence of your friend JI Packer in our pulpit. The message I got from these churches was overwhelmingly one of Christ’s freely offered love and forgiveness. They were always very clear that repentance was important but emphasis was always on Grace. I do know however from my Dutch CRC friends of another kind of Reformed Chuch one that I had thought was long extinct where the “third use of the law” had overwhelmed the gospel of grace (the kind of place when the men of the church would gather on the churches lawn after the morning service to smoke (no doubt congratulating themselves for exercising their christen freedom) but forbid their children to frolic in a neighbouring schools playground because it would be “disrespectful to the Sabbath”. I don’t know the OPC but if it’s like those churches you will be lucky if your kids end up as theologically liberal Christians most just flee the Chuch never to return at the first opportunity. There is a reason why the parts of the world where the reformed faith was most entrenched (Holland, Switzerland, Scotland, New England and even Toronto) are the way they are today and it’s largely the legacy of so called “dead orthodoxy”. Like I said I don’t know the OPC but I hope you don’t let your zeal for orthodoxy overwhelm the spirit of the Gospel.
God Bless
Steve in Toronto
Hodge on 09 Jan 2010 at 2:29 pm #
Hi Steve,
I’m not sure if that constitutes an apology, but thanks anyway.
I actually don’t believe the third use is contrary to grace, but an extension of it. I believe rebuke and discipline is an act of love and grace. Of course, like anything, it can be perverted to selfish and evil uses, but the abuse cannot define the practice. I just cannot see how it is an act of love and grace to not do everything possible within the revealed will of God to move a sinner toward repentance and protect a community from falling into unrepentance.
And BTW, we usually congratulate ourselves with potlucks, not cigars.
Steve in Toronto on 09 Jan 2010 at 3:47 pm #
I made assumption about you based on ignorance and for that I am sorry. I don’t want to suggest that there in is anything in the least wrong with the OPC’s theology I have enormous respect for Westminster Seminary and the many men I know who have graduated from it. The vibe I got reading your posts was that you felt you were saved by your repentance as apposed to Christ Blood. I am convinced I must have misunderstood you but you should be aware that you need to be more clear about how you write in order avoid confusion in the future.
Peace
Steve in Toronto
Steve in Toronto on 09 Jan 2010 at 3:51 pm #
PS for the record I have nothing against cigars (although I haven’t smoked since my second marriage) I don’t think God cares but it really bugs her.
Nightraptor on 11 Jan 2010 at 2:45 pm #
Hey Hodge,
I don’t know if your still watching this thread but a thought occurred to me the other day. If it is the “rebuke and discipline” of the local church which places people under condemnation if ignored then the local church should never ever rebuke or discipline anybody thus ensuring everyone in their flock goes to heaven. I know this would skirt the general duties ascribed to the church, but if it gets more people into heaven and out of hell oh well. Perhaps ignorance really is bliss in this scenario.
Also on a off-topic I had an interesting discussion concerning eschatology with someone claiming to be “reformed”. According to him over time all nations will be Christianized through the enactment of Old Testament Law (I assume he means the moral code not the sacrificial code by this – i.e. homosexuals would be stoned to death). Once all the nations in the world have done this Christ will come. Is this an accurate depiction of “reformed” eschatological views as it almost seems equivalent to radical Islam to me? I know it’s off topic, but I’m just curious on this one.
cherylu on 11 Jan 2010 at 3:04 pm #
Nightraptor, (for your information)
The scenario you talk about in your last paragraph above is referred to generally as “dominion” theology or “dominionism”. It overlaps with “Manifest Sons of God” theology. You can learn a whole lot about these two trains of thought by an online search. They are very popular in certain sements of the church these days. IMO, a huge share of what these theologies believe is quite unbiblical and very troubling.
Hodge on 11 Jan 2010 at 3:05 pm #
Hi Night,
First, let me be more clear here. The rebuke and discipline of the Church is not what condemns the individual. The Church is simply the beacon of light that shines on an individuals sin so that they repent of it and are brought back into a right relationship with God. In other words, they are already standing condemned before God (which is what Paul says of Peter). What Christ backs the Church to do is discipline in the temporal because it is an extension of His own temporal discipline. The Church is to rebuke and discipline so that the person is moved to repent by the Holy Spirit. So the person is already condemned, and if the Church does not do its job, then his blood is on their hands.
The argument you gave here could be used against preaching the gospel as well. Peter says that it would be better had those who rejected the gospel never heard. So should we never preach the gospel? Me genoito!
To the second question, he sounds like a theonomist to me. There are people in Reformed circles that believe in a type of post-millennialism that urges Christians to Christianize the world, and set everyone under the laws of Scripture. I know there are some fine theologians who have believed this, men I respect; but there are also a lot of crazy people who believe it, and I don’t personally feel comfortable with the idea. I don’t see it in Scripture myself. I’m actually an unusual Reformed guy as I still believe in historic pre-mill, so I shy away from post-mill arguments in general (especially ones that I frankly to be more cultic beliefs, even if held by respectable, otherwise orthodox, theologians). Amill is good too.
Hope that helps.
Hodge on 11 Jan 2010 at 3:09 pm #
BTW, just to be clear, there are variations of this theology. Some is not as extreme as others.
C. Barton on 12 Jan 2010 at 8:32 am #
Although obedience to the Mosaic Law is good, and is a basis for many modern legal codes, it has no value for salvation; this idea to “put the world in submission” is dangerously close to the religious spirit of Islam, which has the same strategy and violently so. A religious spirit always seeks to oppress and dominate in this way.
Even so, as Christians we know that putting God’s word into practice (here comes that word again: obedience) is not an option. When Jesus spoke that famous lesson, ” . . . and the Truth shall set you free”, He told us that He wants us to be autonomous = to act independently of any worldly or anti-God influence. Until we put His words to the test, we will always be influenced by other things; perhaps this is part of the problem in the Church today??
Regarding end times, The Revelation of Jesus clearly states that in the end times all nations will be gathered together in rebellion to the Lord (ref: Psalm 2), and that if the time was not cut short, no flesh would survive. It seems that mankind in on a course of self-destruction which only divine intervention will stop. Therefore, beware of Replacement Theology as well, because the Middle East and Israel are at the vanguard of modern fulfillment of prophecy, not the West.
As for Church discipline, Pastors are servants over the flock, but are not “Jesus-by-Proxy”, as in the Roman Catholic tradition. It is ultimately the Lord who disciplines or delivers.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 12 Jan 2010 at 5:50 pm #
C. Barton: “It is ultimately the Lord who disciplines or delivers.”
Ultimately, it’s either Heaven or Hell. If one wants to think of Hell as eternal discipline, well ….
—-
Would anyone have a problem with God, if God were to cast the majority of active, unrepentant homosexuals who professed to be Christians into Hell? With the idea that He would do precisely the same thing to anyone else who had a different sin that they were active and unrepentant of?
And what about those active, unrepentant homosexuals who claim not only to be Christians, but who also claim that same-sex behavior is NOT a sin? I.e., same-sex blessings and homosexual ordinations. Anyone have a problem with God if He chooses to cast all or nearly all those who either teach or profess that same-sex behavior is NOT a sin into Hell?
Truth Unites... and Divides on 13 Jan 2010 at 1:53 am #
The Abomination of Homosexuality in The Episcopal Church.
Excerpts:
“So, what is a self-avowed homosexual person to do? It is clear that neither God nor His Church can countenance homosexual behavior without denying the authority of Holy Scripture and Tradition. So, a person with integrity–one who is intellectually honest–who calls himself a homosexual, and at the same time, calls himself a Christian, is left with three choices for action.
1. He can either revel in his homosexuality, turn his back on God and leave the Church; or 2. He can remain a homosexual but abstain from homosexual acts and embrace a life of celibacy; or 3. He can repent of his homosexuality and find refuge in the Church, seeking the Lord for healing.
…
Clerical leaders of the Episcopal Church or any other Church that claim to be Christian while ignoring the moral law and condoning immoral sexual practices, such as homosexuality, will suffer severe judgment unless they repent. For, by condoning such behavior, they are, in effect, promoting it. They then become accomplices in the sins of those who commit sexual sin. They are equally, if not more culpable, even though they themselves do not commit the same perverted acts of sexual impurity.”
Read it all.
Steve Skeete on 21 Jan 2010 at 2:00 pm #
This article is problematic because (1) it leaves so many question unanswered and (2) it seems to suggest that no matter how I live, or for how long, I can claim to be saved, and as long as I make this claim, others must believe me.
I do not have a problem with a homosexual being a Christian anymore than I have a problem with say, a shoplifter being a Christian.
My problem comes when/if the shoplifter came to the point where he said “I am not going to try to stop shoplifting. After all I was born this way.” And then he goes out and marries or enters into a “monogamous” relationship with another shoplifter and they proceed to make shoplifting a “lifestyle” and requires first the state and then the Church to “bless” their life together of shoplifting.
If at that stage one is still calling the shoplifter a Christian then I have more than a problem. My understanding of scripture suggests to me that while Christians can and do sin they are not to love sin, and they certainly are not to boast about sin, nor seek to identify themselves by a certain sinful practice.
So if they are homosexuals out there, that is, persons who have a sexual attraction and/or sexual desire for persons of the same sex, and persons who from time to time engage in same sex intimacy and struggle to overcome it because they believe what the Bible says about it, I have no problem accepting that they can be saved persons. However if they have same sex attraction and desire, and practice same sex intimacy, loving and enjoying it, then to me that is a problem.
I do not know of any group of Christians anywhere who allow in their membership persons who are not only habitual and outspoken fornicators, adulterers and rapists, but persons who love and enjoy being such.
Nothing I have read or studied in the Old or New Testaments convinces me that one can be a Christian and an open homosexual who sees nothing wrong with his/her behaviour, but rather loves and enjoys the attraction, the desire and the sexual intimacy.
Edavis on 26 Jan 2010 at 3:48 am #
If I understand scripture correctly, in Christ we are a new creation. Therefore when Paul says “Such were some of you …” I believe this means exactly what he said. In other words we were those things but now that we are in Christ we no longer are. This in no way negates the fact that we still struggle with past sins as well as sins dormant within us waiting for the opportuinty through the law to manifest themselves through the members of our body. The same Bible that teaches justification, also teaches sanctification. Both are accomplished by the same Holy Spirit. We need to call into question our salvation experience if we are continuing to live in sin. There is a world of difference between “struggling” with sin and “living” in sin. Having said all of this I agree with scripture that not only is the “homosexual” not a Christian but ” neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” While we struggle with these sins, we are not those persons any longer. If any man be in Christ he is a new creation, the old is gone, the new has come. I think the more we come into the knowledge are who we are in Christ through a renewing of our mind by the Word of God, we will find that ourselves more (not less) victorious over sin.
C. Barton on 26 Jan 2010 at 12:29 pm #
I think Edavis has a good vision of the Christian walk. The choice of homosexuality as a topic is perhaps a stumblingblock to some, who fall under the cognitive illusion that a controversial subject by the world’s standards must also be so in God’s Kingdom. The Bible describes God’s distaste for different kinds of sins, e.g. witchcraft, idolatry, etc., but it describes the born-again believer in good and encouraging terms. If we have the image of Christ in us, then whenever God sees us, He sees His Son, also.
I think that if we truly saw all of the imperfections, sins, and horribly depraved things which may still be lurking in our hearts, we would truly know what it means that we can only be sanctified through the miraculous power of Jesus’ blood. After that, God wants us to turn to Him; this is really the object of repentance – not just deliverance from the power of sin, but a new fellowship with Him!
Pastor Harvey Burnett on 16 Feb 2010 at 11:29 pm #
You said:While I agree with those who say that homosexuality is a terrible sin (Lev. 18:22, 20:13 Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:6; 1 Tim. 1:10), I do not believe it is one that is outside the realm of a believer’s carnality. Neither do I believe that if one practices in homosexuality their entire life that they are necessarily excluded from the Kingdom of God.
Would you say the same about a pedophile such as warren Jeffs? Why would you not believe that those who practice pedophilia are not “excluded from the kingdom of God”?
I believe your post is full of modern rationalizations which take the world of God as “suggestions” for living and not as a command.
I simply as like Paul, how can we that are dead to sin continue to live therein? I’m talking about what Paul was implying…sinful behavior as an overarching life’s premise. Sexual sin, such as homosexuality, is sin that is an overarching life’s premise not a mere idiosyncratic “behavior” as your article paints the picture.