click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Can Homosexuals Be Christian?
by C Michael PattonJanuary 4th, 2010
536 Comments
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).
Similar Posts:
- Can a Divorced Christian be Remarried?
- Divorce, Remarriage, and the Committed Christian
- A Primer on the Christian Understanding of Capital Punishment
- Sinners in the Hands of a Wishy-Washy God?
- Is the New Birth in the Old Testament? or Why Was Christ So Hard On Nicodemus in John 3:10?
Loading ...
536 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
“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).
Like or Dislike:
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0
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
Like or Dislike:
1
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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”
Like or Dislike:
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
“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?
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0
Truth,
The latter.
Like or Dislike:
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
Oh, and yes, Truth, I think you summed it up well.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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/
Like or Dislike:
0
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….”
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
Glad to help bring this question to closure.
(As result of non-closure on a more primary question.)
Like or Dislike:
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
More Comments:
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 11 Next »