click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Can Homosexuals be Christians?
by C Michael PattonMay 23rd, 2012
192 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 and, shortly following, a change of action – no longer participating in this lifestyle. In other words, while some would be willing to say that a homosexual can be saved, their salvation necessitates 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 homosexuality their entire life, they are necessarily excluded from the Kingdom of God. I hope people do not misunderstand my purpose here. I in no way endorse homosexual behavior or seek to relativize its standing before the Lord as an abomination. But I do think that sometimes, we who are not tempted in such a way can fail to see the seriousness of the struggle experienced by people who are tempted towards homosexuality.
Sexual sin and temptation are 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 the 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 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 at some point. 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 my sinful tendencies until then. 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? To that, I say, is there any other kind of Christian?
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 I have had victory over, and some that remain as a naggingly 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 easily ensnaring sin.” I believe 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 to our practicing 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 may 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 straightforward 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 this passage cannot be used by 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, though he remain in a sinning state. Those without the covering of Christ’s righteousness are still identified by their sin in the eyes of God. Therefore, in this context, it is true that fornicators, thieves, coveters, 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, 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. I understand and agree with this to some degree, yet I still 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. For twelve years after the resurrection of Christ, Peter continued in 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 in the New Testament as a mark of ungodliness even more frequently 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 tendency 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 the plight of us all. The solution is not for us to compromise to the politically correct agenda of our culture, which seeks to turn this sin into a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice. But at the same time, we need to be gracious, knowing that the only hope 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?
- Sinners in the Hands of a Wishy-Washy God?
- Lordship Salvation, Free Grace, and Easy-Believism
- Is the New Birth in the Old Testament? or Why Was Christ So Hard On Nicodemus in John 3:10?
- Divorce, Remarriage, and the Committed Christian
192 Comments
Like or Dislike:
2
As always, I appreciate your ability to recognize reality in the face of theology. I am not gay, but I have lots of gay friends. The way they are treated by Christians is horrible because of the (real or perceived) Christian default of rejection because of their sexual preference.
The homosexuals I know – I don’t believe they “chose” it. Who would? Who would choose a life of ostracism? I’m sure some would, but I find it difficult to believe that “homosexuality is a choice” is mostly true. It just doesn’t make sense. The gay people I know had to “come to grips” with their sexuality. You don’t “come to grips” with something you want.
I guess I said all that to say this … I agree that homosexuality is a depraved sinful bent, no different from mine. Thank God sinners … actively practicing sinners … can be Christian!!!
Like or Dislike:
3
Hi Michael,
Great post. It’s interesting how homosexuality has gotten a special sinful status vis-a-vis other sins, as you rightly note. I think this ultimately flows from the deception, amongst certain Christians, in particular, that I’m not as bad as the next guy or gal. Or, that we fail to understand the gravity of what it took for our sin to be put to death; viz. that it took God (the almighty creator) to enflesh, enter into our situation and redeem us from the inside out. If we understood how depraved all of our hearts are (Jer 17.9); we wouldn’t see homosexuality as a special sin that is any different from our favorite pet-sins (whatever those are).
Anyway, good points.
PS. As far as not “chosing” it—homosexuality that is—that seems highly problematic given the theological origin of sin. That is, sin ultimately entered the world constrained by human ‘choice’ in Adam and Eve. Sin continues to be a choice, therefore V. a deterministic non-choice, or some such.
Like or Dislike:
1
I agree to a certain extent, most people heighten this sin, and pick it out above all others. The problem is if one continues to physically play this out for there whole life, then, just like any other person who fails into a continuous sin, over and over again, that person, and we also have the right to question is that one saved. I realize, a guy like me, who is married also have sexual thoughts, especially as the summer roles in. I fight almost everyday my eyes looking to and fro! But, by his grace I never play anything out, more than that, again only by His grace! I do, as you say, feel for someone who struggles with this sin, it’s wicked, and it’s getting worse and worse. I go over to NYC often, and I have to say, it seems like half those over there, fall into this category. Men holding hands with men, Ladies with other ladies who look like men. TV, news, and the rest are blatant in promoting this sin. My son told me at school they are treated and act like their “special”…
Like or Dislike:
0
I meant to end with, lets pray for those rapped up in this sin, especially those who claim to be Christians.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
CMP -wrote: “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.”
I believe the key idea is struggle — but having said that, not everyone who engages in homosexuality struggles with it either. Most I would assume prefer it. That being said, and following your reasoning, couldn’t Paul have taken the same stance you are advocating here with the man having his father’s wife in 1 Cor. 5:1-5 who was to be delivered to Satan? Why not just say he was a sinner and leave it at that? Is having your father’s wife still worse than homosexuality?
To Mike O’s comment — “Who would choose a life of ostracism? (Well Mike — according to the New testament — anyone who follows Christ).
You don’t “come to grips” with something you want.” (Right. But did they ever struggle against it as sin?) That seems to me to be the question of the hour.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9
“Paul identifies Christians with Christ, not with their sinful disposition.”
and so must we. the issue is not what you bring up here, but rather that many in that sin want to justify it, defiantly identify themselves by it, and make others accept it as legitimate. that’s the real issue. should we allow them to continue to make their whole identity about their sexual sin? i think not. should we continue to encourage them to strive after holiness? absolutely. just like any other sinner. we all need to acknowledge the “we are all sinners” fact, but to wear a particular sin as a chip on our shoulder as a point of pride is not something that should be acceptable in the church.
Like or Dislike:
1
I have been in the Anglican ministry (priesthood/presbyter) for over 30 years now. When I was a younger priest, I really hardly ever saw the so-called gay issues or people, yes now and then, but it was much less than the hetrosexual people, and their so-called issues and problems. But over the last 25 years or so, this has changed radically, especially in the last ten or 15 years. And the reason for this is not hard to understand, since this time and culture has come to accept this life-style and nature. And I am quite old enough to remember the sexual mores in the 50′s and early 60′s. It was certainly quite different then. Sure there were gays then, but they were in the so-called closet. But, I am not convinced that there were as many gays as today? Of course I could be wrong. But creationally it does appear God created man for woman, and woman for man, etc.
It does also appear that Paul goes right to the issue of human sexuality in 1 Cor. 6: 12, noting too verses 13-20.(As 7:…
Like or Dislike:
3
If some active, unrepentant homosexuals who profess to follow Christ end up in Heaven, hallelujah.
If some active, unrepentant homosexuals who profess to follow Christ end up in Hell, then that’s entirely up to God.
I merely uphold Scripture’s transcendent teaching that same-sex behavior is sin.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
Ran out of room!
Btw, I think we must look carefully at the exegesis of 1 Cor. 6: 9! “effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” Here the Greek is pressed into two terms, “effeminate”, here is used metaporically, i.e. effeminate to or by perversion, and the latter.. male homosexuals. It is certainly male to male here, sexually. In both places it is a real negative certainly, and I don’t see how we can not see from both Testaments that homosexual sin, practiced, would not affect one’s eternal destiny? It is both an affront to Creation and Christ!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
I would have to agree with most of the post. Christians are sinners, but sinners are not necessarily Christian. As a Christian male, I know the struggle of sexual sin (lust), it’s all around us; but I fight it. That doesn’t mean I don’t lose the fight sometimes, but more often than not I win. I believe some are born with a Homosexual bent, and I believe some choose it, but either way it’s a sin. I would say a Gay person is a Christian, only if they could admit that it is sinful act, repent, and work to rid that sin. That doesn’t mean that they would never sin again, but it would be something they struggle with. The problem I see is a Gay person trying to justify their sin (by saying it’s nature to them, so it must be ok with GOD), not wanting to call it sin. I go to a UM Church, and that’s one of the problems we are going through today, with people wanting the UMC to accept Gay clergy and marriage, because they want the UM church declare that it’s not sinful to be Gay.
Like or Dislike:
1
And the question is not ‘the sin of’ but again the “practice”, i.e. long or life practice of homosexuality. It was seen as aberrant even in the Greco-Roman society! See Thiselton’s NIGTC on 1 Corinthians. WE should surely beware to call sexual and homosexual sin just one of the sins of the flesh, it does appear to be much more central, as we see in St. Paul!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
This article is dangerous I am sorry Michael perhaps I am misunderstanding you or you’re phrasing it wrong.
Homosexuals cannot be Christians because to be Christian is to be “born again” in the spirit. To be Born again is to be dead to sin (not dead in sin as in the case with someone professing to being homosexual) and of course there are struggles with any sin (like smoking, drinking and the like) but one’s identity is changed from the beginning. If one was a homosexual/lesbian that person is no longer homosexual/lesbian after repentance but rather a son or daughter of God. Some people are delivered instantly others battle and are still victorious however they cannot continue to profess they are still gay, NO they can’t otherwise 1 John 3 is ripped off the Bible because anyone born again will not sin! The sin John is referring to is being a slave to sin (feet that are quick to rush in and sin).
Like or Dislike:
2
There is a distinction between someone with involuntary same-sex attraction and a “homosexual” as we usually use the term. Someone with involuntary same sex attraction fights the deviant urge and recognizes it as wrong. I think the term “homosexual” has come to mean someone who embraces this part of themselves, chosen or not, and identifies themselves with the whole gay/lesbian movement. I suppose it may be hypothetically possibility for a homosexual in this sense of the word to be a Christian, if they from the depths of their heart do not understand the evil of what they are doing. But in most cases, a Christian would humble themselves to the teachings of the Scriptures and the Church, and at least acknowledge and try to obey orthodox morality, even if they don’t personally agree. (Since when is defining our own morality a Christian teaching?)
To me, this seems like common sense that too many people are afraid to say.
Like or Dislike:
1
Btw, I heard the other day, that two major American Comic Book Cpmpanies were going to have one of their male Super Hero’s, to be gay.. and perhaps marry their lover! The point here is, sexual ethics are no longer a major issue in so-called modern or life today! Whatever one wants and thinks, seems to pass as the norm today. So to deny that “Satan” is not alive and well, and front and centre here, would be a grave mistake! Indeed ‘the world, the flesh, and the devil’!
Like or Dislike:
1
Can and should we we not agree that “sexual” and thus “homosexual” sin, certainly IS a sin that is somewhat its own category? (1 Cor. 6: 18)
Like or Dislike:
1
I consider myself an Evangelical Christian Theologian with a Calvinistic grounding. What really pisses me off about us Christians in general is taking such a self-righteous posture of contempt and disgust on a person who is part of the LGBT community, when Jesus went out of His way while here on earth to seek out sinners. Yes friends and family who are part of the LGBT community you are a sinner too. There is no such thing as a “super sin” worthy of being shamed, belittled, put down, or viewed as some kind of “freak of nature” when sin IS part of the human condition. Charles Spurgeon, often called the “Prince of Preachers” had said something to the effect of; That sin which you save from the slaughter will be the sin that slaughters you. The Law, The Ten Commandments can only drive a person to the foot of the Cross of Jesus Christ, and no further. The offer of forgiveness for sin is open to all sinners, past, present, or future. (John 3:16-18) Judgement is not ours to…
Like or Dislike:
2
Judgement is not ours to mettle out. (ran out of space in my prior post) This is the point here as I quote a portion of CMP’s original post:
“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.”
Like or Dislike:
0
I guess we all have to ask in he end what is grace all about. Yes, the Bible states certain sins are against practicing
as Christians.
While I am against homosexuality personally, only the Lord can know in a heart whether someone is saved or not. Yes, homsexuality is a sin, according to the bible but so are divorce and other things.
Does that mean we get a pass because of the grace of God, or in spite of it?
Like or Dislike:
1
I just love it when we decide on whether they are or can be Christian without talking to THEM….
I just don’t buy this at all…. It just makes us avoid the reality of homosexuals can be Christians.
The way we are talking about them makes me think of the Temple structure with courts for more and less deserving or less part of the community … Courts for women, gentiles, etc…
The physically imperfect are not worthy of being in God’s presence…
Do you want to be sorted out like that…?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8
Michael,
I appreciate the compassion and grace in this post. I certainly agree that as fellow sinners we ought not to separate homosexuality into a special class of sin more deserving of condemnation than other sins. God’s grace is certainly big enough to forgive, cleanse and even change the sinner who struggles with same-sex desires. But I do think it is critical that the one who has these desires agrees with God that homosexual behavior is sinful and learns to identify themselves with Christ, not with their sin. They may continue to experience a homosexual “bent” but must view that bent through God’s holy eyes, and see it as wicked, not embrace it as “God-given”, or as their true identity. I think phrases like gay Christian or homosexual Christian are neither valid nor helpful because they may encourage someone with this bent to embrace, rather than repent of, the sinful homosexual lifestyle. Sinners must forsake their sins, not deny and justify them, as unfortunately…
Like or Dislike:
3
(continued from above) many who have struggled with homosexuality do, and are even encouraged to do, by wrongheaded churches. I struggle with sexual sin too, as well as other sins, but if I started calling my sins a God-given bent and therefore refused to leave them, I would be justly condemned. So yes I think sexual sins are very deep and very hard to overcome, but the 1st step is acknowledgment that it is sin.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think it comes down to whether we believe in Calvinism or not. If we do, then some homosexuals could be saved and some not not based upon preselection.
I’m not there.
Like or Dislike:
2
mbaker: This is hardly “Calvinism”! And I have noted that no ones has noted that St. Paul sees all “sexual” sin as against one’s own body! (1 Cor. 6:18-19) The issue is the Body of Christ, which the confessing Christian claims to belong.
Like or Dislike:
0
Agreed, but Calvinism preaches grace in all things does it not? How is this different in homosexuality?
Like or Dislike:
0
*one
Like or Dislike:
1
(1) Its clear that mbaker doesn’t get Calvinism at all.
(2) It seems that David Longstreet was upset that we’d decide on whether they are or can be Christian without talking to THEM…. yet has decided they can be Christians without talking to them.
Like or Dislike:
3
I don’t think St. Paul saw practicing and faithful Christians as those who do or practice “sexual” sin. Noting 1 Cor. 6:11, “Such were some of you; but you were washed”, etc. And noting too the man in 1 Cor. 5 is delivered to Satan, for the destruction (olethros, Gk.) of the flesh, i.e. this is the physical judgment of the flesh, that hopefully the spirit might be saved at the Bema-seat of Christ. (And noting too, 2 Cor. 12: 20-21, with 13: 5-10). And yes, we all fall into sin, but living in a great sinful condition, and the sin of sexual sin, I don’t see Paul giving credence! The question is thus, not do Christians do or fall into such sins, they can and sadly do. But the question is, when Christians sin, do they seek repentance and confess there sin/sins. They do, they must!
Like or Dislike:
0
*their
Like or Dislike:
0
Alex, they are not God given bents, they are Adam given bents.
Like or Dislike:
2
http://www.facebook.com/notes/alpha-and-omega-ministries/gay-christianity-refuted/463468377003536
James White refutes Gay Christianity on this broadcast.
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, I like or hope as #8 also! But the standard of Law & Gospel must not be diminished! We must not be antinomian!
Like or Dislike:
1
Sorry but I was raised that God is LOVE. Who are WE to judge anyone!
Like or Dislike:
1
Good post, but I am not sure about this part:
“While I believe that homosexuals can be saved, they cannot believe that homosexuality is approved by God or attempt to justify their sin. I understand and agree with this to some degree, yet I still say that this is not always the case. We all have ways of justifying our bents, whatever they may be.”
We do try to justify them, but isn’t it more because we do not want to admit we are doing the actual sin. We are not trying to say a specific sin is ok, we attempt to say we are not doing it. If I gossip, I try to say it is because I am interested in the well-being of someone else. I don’t say it is ok to gossip.
Like or Dislike:
3
Michael, it’s not just 1 Cor. 6, but a multidude of texts would all negate what you seem to be postulating. See for example Matt. 7:21-23; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:5-6; Heb. 12:14, and 1 Jn. 2:3-6, 3:4-11.
I am not singling out homosexuality here. It is just one expression of sin. Nor am I taking issue with having a homosexual bent where one may be tempted all their life to succumb to it (just as a heterosexual may be tempted all their life to succumb to a sinful expression of that). What I am taking strong exception to is the notion that one may practice sin as a lifestyle, whether homosexual, heterosexual, a-sexual, and be in Christ and inherit the kingdom of God. I have the greatest respect for you bro, but on this it seems to me you have seriously distorted the teaching of Sacred Scripture and the grace of. It seems to me to be a kind of theoretical antinomianism, a weak understanding of regeneration, and a functional denial of Christ’s Lordship.
Like or Dislike:
2
Michael, I think John Murray is relevant here in what he has expressed in his classic work “Redemption: Accomplished and Applied”. Because of space limitations I will need to post in 2 parts:
“Justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Justification is not all that is embraced in the gospel of redeeming grace. Christ is a complete Saviour and it is not justification alone that the believing sinner possesses in him. And faith is not the only response in the heart of him who has entrusted himself to Christ for salvation.”
Like or Dislike:
2
Part 2 -
“Faith alone justifies but a justified person with faith alone would be a monstrosity which never exists in the kingdom of grace. Faith works itself out through love (cf. Gal. 5:6). And faith without works is dead (cf. James 2:17-20). It is living faith that justifies and living faith unites to Christ both in the virtue of his death and in the power of his resurrection. No one has entrusted himself to Christ for deliverance from the guilt of sin who has not also entrusted himself to him for deliverance from the power of sin. “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (Rom. 6: i, 2).”
I think what Murray is saying here directly speaks to what you are saying, and I don’t see how what he is saying can be successfully gainsayed. Michael, I have the greatest respect for you, but I would appeal to you to take a step back, reflect further and reconsider.
Like or Dislike:
2
Michael, just to be clear on my end, I am not thinking that you are advocating a homosexual lifestyle or any other kind of sinful lifestyle. Or, that you saying that sin in any form is pleasing to God. My point is simply that regeneration as Biblically defined involves a new heart, with God’s laws put in that new heart. It is a powerful, sovereign work of the spirit that issues in a radical break from the reign of sin over a persons life. Not perfection, but a new direction lived under the Lordship of Christ as the pattern of one’s life. A true Christian practicing rebellion against God is an oxymoron it seems to me. Thank you for hearing me out.
Like or Dislike:
0
One more thing, if I may. I think if you had merely attempted to differentiate between having a homosexual bent from practicing or living out that bent, you would have in my humble opinion served the cause of truth much better. It would seem to me that Biblically what God calls the Christian with a homosexual bent to is celbacy in that regard. I cannot see how we could ever come to the conclusion that the Bible permits the fulfillment of that bent in one who professes to be a Christian. And this would apply to the other kinds of sins that the Bible itself refers to as excluding one from the heaven. We dare not ever so understand the grace of God in a way that perverts it into a license for immorality (see Jude 4; Rom. 6:1-2). Rather, God’s grace will always lead us toward obedience (see Tit. 2:11-12). I hope I have not come accross too strong or harshly. I just think that this is no small matter to get wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0
Please pardon all my grammatical typos — haste indeed makes waste!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
Post Title: “Can Homosexuals be Christians?”
Might the title and the question be insufficiently nuanced?
Here’s a suggested question that I think might be more helpful:
Can active practicing homosexuals who don’t believe that their same-sex behavior is a sin be Christians?
Like or Dislike:
0
Not sure if you guys have sucessfufully dealt with the instance of Peter that I used to illustrate how one can live in prolonged sin while indwelt by the Holy Spirit. It was my primary passage.
I am certainly willing to change, but that illustration stands out pretty big and definitive in my opinion right now. John Murray is great but his opinions don’t do to much for this issue.
Like or Dislike:
0
As well, my own persistent sin (though it is a true and realized struggle for the most part) serves as a glooming illustration as well.
Like or Dislike:
0
I agree with “Bruce”. The whole reality of the Gospel stands upon God’s Law & Righteousness, and nothing less, certainly grace is more, but only thru Christ the Victor! And here is both Law & Gospel. Not a wit of antinomian, or the loss of moral law!
And that’s the question as I see it too, TU & D. Of course here we are talking about the active or general sense of Christianity, and not some kind of minimal. But as you first noted, we must leave that with God!
Like or Dislike:
1
CMP-
In regards to Peter, was he openingly accepting of the sin, was he misunderstanding how it should be applied, or was he not thinking as a sin? When confronted that it was a sin, by both the Holy Spirit and Paul, he seems to have understood it better.
I don’t see where he was seeing as a sin and just ignoring it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Once upon a time, people thought that the bible commanded the righteousness of slavery. This bias was a product of the culture of the time, not of a real theological requirement. The same is the case with gays. Once society moved beyond its sanctioning of slavery, it moved beyond these dubious biblical-based arguments in favor of slavery.
Paul says a lot more about slavery (mainly accepting it, never criticizing it) than about gays. But eventually the culture realized (what was obvious then about biblical statements on slavery and now on gays) that these were products of the culture in which the biblical authors lived (the authors accepted many of the cultural values of their time, like the existence of slavery), not the actual theological inspiration behind the bible itself.
The anti-gay bias is simply a product of the current culture, not of a real biblical command. It won’t be long now until this bias seems as quaint as the past biases that now seem ridiculous.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP: Years back doing a study on Ps. 51 for a sermon, etc., I was working on the timeline which dwelt on King David sexual sin, with Bathsheba etc., and he was “backslidden” for about a year or so, before Nathan the prophet, came and spoke the truth to him. Of course we sometimes forget about Uriah, David’s sin lead to “bloodguiltiness, i.e. murder!
Speaking for myself, I am not King David, and a year being “backslidden”, I would not want to presume! But David sure had his woes later, also!
Like or Dislike:
1
Btw, just me, but I loved the John Murray quote! Murray was both a preacher and a teacher-theolog! Sorry Michael, we are kinda opposite on this, I see the theological issue of God’s Law & Gospel here! The Moral Law is central here too, and Paul was simply never antinomian! Our subjective experience never changes God’s Moral Order! I hope you get my point, i.e. the character and nature of God!
Like or Dislike:
1
For us Reformed (as too St. Paul), we all must approach God first in His forensic place and formal argumentation, when we loose this “theologically”, our subjective is certainly in trouble! In reality we are always (in this life) pressed back into that tension of ‘the already but not yet’. That’s how I see it anyway.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6
A suggested question with more nuance: “Can active practicing homosexuals who don’t believe that their same-sex behavior is a sin be Christians?”
CMP: “Not sure if you guys have sucessfufully dealt with the instance of Peter that I used to illustrate how one can live in prolonged sin while indwelt by the Holy Spirit. It was my primary passage.
I am certainly willing to change, but that illustration stands out pretty big and definitive in my opinion right now.”
Version 2.0 of the nuanced question:
Can active practicing homosexuals who don’t believe that their same-sex behavior is a sin, and who therefore live and practice their prolonged sin without acknowledging that it is sin, AND THEN THEY DIE WITHOUT REPENTING OF THEIR SAME-SEX SIN, are they Heaven-Bound Followers and Disciples of Christ?
Like or Dislike:
0
What makes a person a Christian?
Like or Dislike:
1
Can you be a Christian and gay?…
> A Christian may, indeed, be openly homosexual; that is no proof homosexuality and Christianity are compatible. In fact, a Christian may be openly sinning; that is no proof sin and Christianity are compatible, either. > Ananias and Sapphira, a husband…
Like or Dislike:
2
Actively practicing sinners are Christians?
The Bible calls us “saints” not “sinners” after justification by faith in the blood of Jesus.
We are “saints who sometimes sin” but if we are completely unrepentant, what is the evidence that we are saved?
And we cannot limit this to just homosexual BEHAVIOR
Like or Dislike:
0
Of course the Grace of God makes the “Christian”, but this is also in both Justification and Sanctification, and these two run very closely in biblical theology! Noting again here 1 Cor. 6: 11.
It is again not a question of the presence of sin in the life of the believer (Rom. 7:13-25), but it is the question and reality of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer overcoming “sins” in the believer, (Rom. 8:10-14, etc.) And for myself at least, it hard to see St. Paul advocating that Christians can or should live in or allow “sexual” sin! Again, noting.. 1 Cor. 6: 11, “And such WERE some of you..” Again, were not talking about perfection here, but as has been noted some “sins” are worse than others, and for Paul sexual sin, which is against the “body” (1 Cor. 6:18), is one that we are told to “Flee”! And to “Be not deceived”! (1 Cor. 6:9)
Like or Dislike:
1
Let’s look at a couple of scenarios …
man, age 60. he has been gay his whole life. Becomes a Christian at the age of 50. Learns early on in his faith that his behavior is abhorent and sincerely tries (and fails) to overcome his lifestyle. He has 50 years of baggage to work through, never mind the paradigm 180 he has to go through in his mind, behavior, relationships, philosophies, etc. But he sincerely loves the Lord and is working it out (with occasional ‘failures’) and wants nothing more than to please Christ in this, but fails.
Like or Dislike:
1
Scenario #2
man, age 60. he has been gay his whole life. Becomes a Christian at the age of 50. Learns early on in his faith that his behavior is abhorent, but doesn’t particularly care and does not try to overcome his lifestyle. He has 50 years of baggage to work through, never mind the paradigm 180 he has to go through in his mind, behavior, relationships, philosophies, etc. If you ask him, he will say he loves the Lord but he’s under grace and Jesus loves him anyway.
Behavior-wise, there is no difference. Attitude-wise, there is a big difference. The 2nd man, while he’s correct that he’s under grace, risks his salvation by his flippant attitude. The 1st man, *because* he is under grace, is safe in the arms of Christ … even if he never quite overcomes. At least that’s how I interpret sin, grace, obedience, and “following” Christ.
Like or Dislike:
0
One of the best articles I’ve seen you write.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think Mike O is exactly right.
Like or Dislike:
1
Isn’t quoting scripture when trying to make an argument for someone who doesn’t ‘subscribe’ kind of pointless. I mean its only useful when ‘preaching to the choir’, which obviously this article is.
And furthermore it makes one question, whats the point of this article? Its obviously not directed towards the gay/lesbian crowd. Why would you quote 4 passages which sound like hate speech!
No this Article is obviously targeting ‘gay friendly’ christians. And this article makes you feel good doesn’t it? It makes you feel like your right to think that homosexuality is wrong, hell maybe you shouldn’t even feel guilty for it.
Wake up. Any way you put it persecution and ostricism for ones beliefs is wrong, and you know it.
Like or Dislike:
0
The second man is what I have been seeking to relate, an antinomian, a man without the moral law of God, and thus no real obedience! And this is simply huge in so-called modern (really postmodern) Christendom! Here we can note the “emergents” to some degree. And here is perhaps why some Christians end-up in Roman Catholicism? Seeking authority, law-gospel, etc. And btw, we have not spoken about natural law here, as it surely relates to both creation and the gospel! As Reformed, I maintain both a proper Law/Gospel, and here to my mind is the centre of the Pauline Gospel and theology! And we are being “caught” today in this loss of natural doctrine and theology, with a skewed look at so-called “gay” issues. Man is always more than his body and its appetites!
Like or Dislike:
0
Whether the homosexual professing to be a Christian “gets to Heaven” or not would seem to be determined not by what he or she may have to “struggle with” (if by that we mean temptation), but by what he or she actually practices. Following a long list of sins, Paul declares in Rom. 1:32 that those who “commit” — (prassontes; present tense active voice, defined as “to perform repeatedly or habitually”) — such things “are worthy of death”. The battle with temptation is won or lost at the door of the mind, by the transformation of which we are renewed (or not), Rom. 12:2. A converted homosexual, like a converted adulterer, dope addict, or alcoholic, may have to struggle with his or her old passions, but if he or she continually gives in, he or she is like the dog “returned to his own vomit”. “They went out from us because they were not of us.” In the end, only God knows who was a backsliding genuine believer, and whose “faith fizzled fore the finish cause it was flawed…
Like or Dislike:
0
……..from the first.” Thought I had enough room left, but didn’t!
Like or Dislike:
0
Holy Scripture can never sound like “hate speech”, if spoken in their own presupposition, as God’s Word! Btw, “Eyes Open”, you might want to read 2 Tim. 3: 12!
Like or Dislike:
0
Eyesopen, you asked, “Isn’t quoting scripture when trying to make an argument for someone who doesn’t ‘subscribe’ kind of pointless. I mean its only useful when ‘preaching to the choir’, which obviously this article is. ”
Not at all. I would agree with you if you were saying it is pointless to use scripture to try to convince a non-subscriber. But what’s happening here is the question is being raised “to the choir” for self evaluation and potential correction.
You’re right, it’s not directed at the GL crowd, it’s directed at “the choir” about how we relate to the GL crowd. Why use 4 “hate speech” passages? Because we use them on the GL crowd and we’re evaluating that.
This article isn’t targeting ‘gay friendly’ christians. It’s targeting whoever happens to be reading here (people who more than likely tend *not* to be gay friendly), proposing that perhaps we *should* be more “gay friendly” (negative connotation unintended but unavoidable).
Like or Dislike:
0
And now I will tell you what Jesus said about homosrxuality…..oh wait he didn’t say anything about it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Having said that, I think the question was never about “is it OK to be gay.” It’s not. Period. The question in my mind is, if a gay person wants to be (or thinks they are) a Christian, what does the Bible say abut them?
And equally important, what does the Bible say about US, as heterosexual Christians, and how we are to respond when faced with this apparent anomoly? Because it happens.
Do we give them Eyesopen’s four hate verses? Or do we welcome them and help them work through it … which implies they’re still in it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Short answer? Yes.
Long answer? Homosexuality is a moral sin, but there are many moral sins, false weights and measures are likewise an abomination (something some Christian employers should remember). Can a Christian be entangled by sin, even want to justify their sin to themselves? Yes.
When even our righteous deeds are as filthy rags, any sin is bad. Christians are saved despite themselves, not because of anything they might have done (except accept the graciousness of God).
No small part of the issue of the man having sex with his father’s wife was the shame it was bringing on the church in the eyes of pagans. Homosexuality didn’t attract such approbation.
Like or Dislike:
1
One can see that several people’s blog statements are completely missing the reality that the Christian’s life and body are quite literally the Lord’s! Thus sexual sin, homo-sexual or otherwise is a sin against one’s own “body”, and too against Christ’s Lordship! Therefore sexual sin is quite different in the order of sins. We see this whole argument from St. Paul in 1 Cor. 6:12-20.
Like or Dislike:
0
The fact remains the Bible states there is only one unforgivable sin and that is blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
Like or Dislike:
1
Yes, and just what is that Sin? But in St. Paul, see 1 Cor. 3:17 with 1 Cor. 6:13. Sexual Sin and immorality is certainly worthy of the destruction of the flesh and body, as we can see in 1 Cor. 5:5, and we can also note 1 Cor. 3:17. And see 1 Cor. 6: 19 also…”So glorify God in your body and in your spirit.” (20) Which of course is the Lord’s Temple! Indeed in 1 Cor. 6 Paul gives us the Theology of the Body.
Like or Dislike:
0
But is it the unforgivable sin? No one knows for sure. All good theologians admit that.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think it is interesting myself, that Paul does not engage in that question, itself. For him sin, is as the Greek word “Hamartia”, which is literally a missing of the mark, a most comprehensive idea or term for moral loss and conduct. And this is always measured by the Law of God for Paul, “lawlessness”. The loss of the moral order and governing principle or power of God! Note too, Hamartema, like Hamartia, denotes more an act of disobedience to the Divine law. Again, for Paul it is the Moral Law of God that is itself attacked in sin! But Paul is always the Jewish Pharisee in the best sense of the word. And his theology fully honors and fulfills the Law of God in Christ!
Like or Dislike:
0
So indeed for Paul all sexual sin, deeply misses the mark of God’s glory, especially! And here God can be jealous and pronounce a judgment, but as too Jesus said to the women caught in adultery: ‘go and sin no more’! Note too, Paul’s words in Col. 3: 5-6-7, etc.
Like or Dislike:
0
The question is here, although she was told to go and sin no more was that greater than God’s grace if she didn’t, but still believed in Him? This is what you Calvinists say, and I am only asking for the difference here.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think I get your meaning? There is really no stock answer for Calvinists here, save that God’s grace forgives and enables sinful beings to go and ‘sin no more’. Of course there is no perfection here, but the change of grace and regeneration!
Like or Dislike:
0
At what point does the grace of God become sufficient in the life of a Christian believer? We can become polemic in our theological stance, but to what degree of certainty are you in your given position? In light of Deut. 29:29, Scripture tells us a lot about what God felt necessary to convey to us in the widely accepted Canon of Scripture, yet it is also silent about many details. Consider the thief at Calvary who Christ assured on that day, that he would be with Jesus in (timeless) paradise. Grace was unmerited and granted, no work or atonement required, and none could have been performed. We assume that his crime was stealing, being identified as a thief, but what if his biography was much more heinous. Consider all that is taboo in the days of Jesus. Add to that, our modern taboos and various sin issues. Yet Christ accepted him because he asked to be remembered. No lengthy theological exchange, rather a defense, confession, request, and acceptance. Simple.
Like or Dislike:
0
As I have observed the ongoing discussion one of the things I have noticed, with a few notible exceptions, is that many of those commenting have seemed to not really be interacting with and applying the Bible itself to this issue. And I am wondering why that would be? Shouldn’t God’s authoritative word in Sacred Scripture, rightly interpreted, be determinitive for us here?
Like or Dislike:
2
Take, for example, just this passage from Ephesians — “But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous ( that is, an idolater), has no 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.” – Eph. 5:3-6
How can the notion that a genuine Christian can at the same time be a practicing homosexual be harmonized with what the Bible is saying here? I may be a blockhead, but for the life of me I simply cannot see how what Michael has suggested (sorry Michael) can comport with what seems to me at any rate the clear meaning of the text.
Like or Dislike:
1
Bruce, I guess I’ll see you in hell, brother. NOBODY passes the test you just quoted.
I agree with you that the Bible IS true and that this verse DOES mean what it says. But at the same time, there MUST be a considerable dose of grace, or heaven will be a very lonely place for the godhead.
I can’t reconcile it – I just think grace is a factor that doesn’t happen to be mentioned in this verse. But at the same time, I know I can say that about anything. So I could be wrong. But if I am, like I said, I’ll see you in hell. Sorry.
Like or Dislike:
1
Mike O, thanks for the interaction. Please keep in mind that what the Bible is talking about here and elsewhere is a lifestyle, a pattern of life —- not mere isolated acts of sin, but rather that which is characteristic. And would you really want to say that nobody conforms to what the apostle is saying here? Is not the very opposite the point of the text —- that is, that all true Christians must and do conform to what he is saying? I am just focusing on what the text is saying, not on what we might want it to say. Are we not committed to the principle that what Scripture is teaching, as God’s very word written, must interpret and judge our experience and not the other way around? Forgive me if I seem to be speaking too bluntly. I don’t mean to offend.
Like or Dislike:
0
And here’s what everyone was waiting for…(drumroll)…the Orthodox Christian perspective!
No? LOL oh well here’s a link anyway:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/christianity_and_same_sex_attraction
Orthodox Christianity is the oldest Christian tradition, and the least changed over time. We are “backwards compatible”…I could go back 500 years in the past, or 1000 years, or 1500 years…the basics of our beliefs wouldn’t have changed.
This podcast is deep…a lot of heavy lifting…about 2 hours long…but it articulates our approach to this topic. If you are looking for answers that fit on a bumper sticker, this ain’t it.
By the way, we call this subject “same sex attraction” (SSA). Calling someone “homosexual” gives them a 1-dimentional label that is not conducive to repentance.
Glory to God for all things
Like or Dislike:
0
Not at all – hey, I’m the one that said “see you in hell” so I would have no right to be offended
. And I’m not.
I actually agree with everything you’re saying. But people fail. And I don’t think failure precludes you from heaven. It’s a spirit/heart thing. The hard thing about these blogs is we’re talking about physical behaviors, not spiritual relationships.
I think we need to be careful that we don’t lump everyone who falls into that sin (or any sin) into the camp of “they don’t care what scripture says.” In that case I would agree. But I also think it is possible to love the lord your god with all your heart and all your strength and all your soul and *still* succumb to homosexual behavior.
Let me put it this way – if the person is “struggling with” their sin, they’re probably OK. If they’re not even “struggling,” they’re just giving in, I think that fits what your’e talking about, Bruce.
Like or Dislike:
0
I freely admit that I lean liberal when it comes to behavior. People struggle and people have lifetimes of baggage that doesn’t just go away when they get saved. I tend to give leeway for that, and I think God does, too.
But the bottom line is, God is God, and I am not. What I *think* has no bearing on what God actually *does*. I just tend to think there’s a lot of leeway for people that love Christ – the real Christ, not some new age, feel good Christ. The REAL Christ of scripture.
Like or Dislike:
1
Michael — a sincere question for you. You said in your article – “Neither do I believe that if one practices homosexuality their entire life, they are necessarily excluded from the Kingdom of God.” How is that in accord with “For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous ( that is, an idolater), has no 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” (Eph. 5)? I am not trying to be harsh, but am sincerely asking out of the deepest respect for you and your ministry.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mike O — genuinely appreciate your candor and humilty.
Like or Dislike:
2
minimus, I totally agree with what you said. God took us out of that pit of sin, but sometimes we fall back in (or jump in). Just because we were delivered from sin doesn’t mean we’ll never sin. The problem is when someone claims to be a Christian and continues to be satisfied in living life in the flesh. I don’t think the majority of Christians single out homosexuals. I think homosexuals feel singled out because it is a sin that is openly declared and thus gets more attention than other sins may. To claim that you are a Christian and then to be completely satisfied living the homosexual lifestyle is a contradiction. By homosexual lifestyle, I’m not just talking about sex, I’m talking about the entire lifestyle; living with a partner, participating in protests to further the gay agenda, participating in gay pride events, etc… Gay lifestyle. By doing so and calling themselves Christians is like shaking your fist at God.
Like or Dislike:
2
Mike O — recently read this by Mark Dever in his helpful book, “What is a Healthy Church”: “I often tell my congregation that when it comes to battling sin in our lives, the difference between Christians and non-Christians is not that non-Christians sin whereas Christians don’t. The difference is found in which sides we take in the battle. Christians take God’s side against sin, whereas non-Christians take sin’s side against God. In other words, a Christian will sin, but then he will turn to God and his Word and say, ‘Help me fight against sin.’ A non-Christian, even if he recognizes his sin, effectively responds, ‘I want my sin more than God.’
I thought this was helpful, that you would appreciate it, and wanted to share it with you.
Like or Dislike:
1
I think the problem I’m having is that the term “lifestyle” may mean different things to different people. If by “lifestyle” people mean sex, then that’s one thing, but I tend to think of lifestyle as something more than sex. I see a lifestyle as a way of living, not who you choose to have sex with.
Like or Dislike:
0
@ Bruce: well said.
Like or Dislike:
0
Don’t forget, Peter was a bigot who neglected a clear teaching in the OT (i.e. being a “Kingdom of Priests”) with his prejudice. I don’t think you guys (some of you) are really dealing with this still. He was like this for twelve years with the presence of the Holy Spirit inside him!! When he had his “revelation” on Simon’s roof, he acted like the thought of mingling with Gentiles had never occurred to him even though it was a consistent testimony in the OT and in the life of Christ. My goodness, the great commission teaches it. Act 1 admonishment says you are to be my witnesses to the utter most parts of the earth.
Now, what if Peter had died year eleven? It is okay to live eleven years in unrepentant sin? How about 12? 13? Who knows? But, really, the question is Who know when where and how the Holy Spirit is going to work with us as individuals. I know that I am discovering sins all the time that I have covered up for years. I am glad I am covered by the grace of God or I would be up s%$t creek.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
In the OT God was willing to forgive sins committed unwittingly, in ignorance. But anyone who sinned deliberately and defiantly had to be put to death (Lev. 4 and Num.15:30-31). I think Peter’s sin of racism was unwitting. Yes, he should have known better because of Jesus’ teaching & example, but it seems he hadn’t joined the dots yet and the light bulb didn’t come on in his head for a further 12 years. But in his 2nd epistle he wrote:
If people have escaped from the corrupting forces of the world through their knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and then are again caught and conquered by them, such people are in worse condition at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been much better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than to know it and then turn away from the sacred command that was given them.
Like or Dislike:
0
I just don’t believe that homosexuality is a genetic disposition that compels same sex individuals to be attracted to each other. I know this is a popular excuse for homosexuality thinking this would be a justification for the lifestyle. There is just simply no evidence to support such a claim. The often retort then would be why would anyone choose to be gay and be ostracized by society? Maybe a couple of decades ago that was true but they are well lauded today and it is the people who reject this behavior that is being ostracized. Maybe we should ask the question why anyone would want to call homosexuality and lesbianism a sin and risk being ostracized, if it wasn’t true. I’ll get back to this point later.
(need to continue in part 2)
Like or Dislike:
1
So why would a person want to practice homosexuality? If we assume that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality should we not also assume a genetic basis for bestiality? What about a pedophile? What about serial killers? Or why do people commit any type of sins at all? No one wants to be a homosexual, at least in the past, has very negative consequences. So does taking drugs, kid nowadays would sniff all sorts of chemicals to get a high even if it kills them. I am not God so I don’t know what is in a person’s heart, but to just say that we sin because we can’t help ourselves does not eliminate that sin in the eyes of God.
But what I want to know is why the hypocrisy from some proponents of homosexuality who seem to be so intolerant toward Christians like me who thinks homosexuality is a sin? These same people who would call me intolerant, bigot, homophobic because I have a certain moral view of homosexuality would not hesitate to get me fired from my job and ostracized socially.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Bruce and @souzak99, great points! “Lifestyle” vs “sex” is an excellent distinction. Someone promoting the lifestyle i.e. not struggling with it or “living in” it is different than “falling into” it.
CMP, this is a great discussion
It’s interesting to see the theologies wrestle with this! There are great points all around … which I find to be typical.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP-
“Peter was a bigot who neglected a clear teaching in the OT…I know that I am discovering sins all the time that I have covered up for years.”
Peter neglected and covered up the clear teaching. But would he have denied its truth when confronted? Did he? No.
When you were covering up your sins, did you say those are no longer sins, or did you make excuses on how they were not “technically” sins? When you discover your sin, do you say it is not a sin, or do you admit you have been wrong?
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael — much more can be said regarding what you raise about Peter in this discussion, but at the very least doesn’t it violate at least these 2 basic hermenuetical principles? —–
1. Historical narrative is to be interpreted by the didactic.
2. The implicit is to be interpreted by the explicit.
Like or Dislike:
1
@teleologist said, “But what I want to know is why the hypocrisy from some proponents of homosexuality who seem to be so intolerant toward Christians like me who thinks homosexuality is a sin? These same people who would call me intolerant, bigot, homophobic because I have a certain moral view of homosexuality would not hesitate to get me fired from my job and ostracized socially.”
That is quite true, and is actually a useful response because EVERYONE is intolerant of those that oppose them. The question to us is, regardless of whether or not THEY are intolerant, how should WE be? We take our orders from the Lord Jesus Christ – WWJD?
Jesus would give them a fair shot at the gospel. But he would not change the gospel to include them (like I would
). Time after time in the Gospels, we see Jesus letting sinners take hold of the gospel or not. He didn’t negotiate (like I would 
). And he wouldn’t ostracize them. They could be around Him … or not.
Like or Dislike:
0
Can anyone tell me why some of these comments that show up on my email don’t seem to show up here?
Like or Dislike:
0
Don’t know where I found this or who said it, but it’s pretty good:
The homosexual community should support homophobia as a natural sexual orientation that non-homosexuals are born with. After all, it would seem more likely that heterosexuality is genetically based since heterosexual behavior produces offspring where homosexual behavior does not. So, heterosexual orientation must be genetically natural, should be supported as a normal behavior, should not be ridiculed, should have civil rights protection, and be promoted in schools and the media — just as homosexuality is. And, homosexuals who accuse heteros of being homophobic should be labeled as “heterphobes”. Otherwise, the obvious double-standard offered by the homosexual community will once again rear its ugly head.
Like or Dislike:
0
To those who are saying that a Christian can’t continue to “practice” sin their entire lives and still get in to heaven . . .
Does a day go by that any of us don’t sin in some way?
If what you say is true, then NO ONE will get to heaven.
We all sin. Everyday. Until the day we die. Grace forgives all those sins: past, present, and future. When you say that a professing Christian is not really saved if they continue to do X sin (you fill in the blank), you are really saying that we have to be “good” in order to get in to heaven. That is salvation by works, not Grace. Good people go to Heaven, bad people go to Hell.
We are all bad people.
None of us deserve Heaven. Only by God’s grace will anyone make it there. The Bible is full of flawed people who committed terrible sins, but God loved them anyway. That’s why grace is so amazing. We don’t deserve it. We can’t earn it. We can’t buy it. We can only accept it.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Rick: Nice piece of logic, love it! But sadly many people, even so-called Christians, don’t think!
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, you said that mingling with Gentiles was a consistent testimony in the OT. But the OT mainly taught the Jews strict separation, with only sparse hints about worldwide mission. Jesus told his apostles to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and he himself ministered mainly to Jews. The Great Commission is likely to have been understood by all the apostles to mean “Go into all the world and make disciples of dispersed Jews” rather than make disciples of Gentiles too. In Acts 11 when Peter was criticised for mingling with Gentiles, none of the other apostles defended him, so it seems all the apostles shared Peter’s bigotry. Peter’s racist attitude was the cultural norm for the early church. Therefore I think Peter’s bigotry was not a case of deliberately covering up what he knew deep down was sinful but rather merely that he was slow to catch on. Acts 17:30 highlights the newness of the idea God’s worldwide mission to Gentiles.
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, we simply must see the “Jewish” Peter, it is here that the so-called “bigot” (unfair to my mind really) was standing! As we can see and note in Acts 10: 14, etc. the Gentiles were simply “unclean” to the Jews! So this was a constant issue no doubt with the 1st. century Jewish Christans.
Like or Dislike:
1
To Phil:
NKJ Exodus 20:10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.
NKJ Deuteronomy 14:21 ” You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a holy people to the LORD your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.
Gentiles were proselytes (LXX for alien) among the Jews; uncircumcised Gentile converts.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Michael: I agree with Bruce, the hermeneutic principles seem to have gone by the wayside on this tread? And btw, I again see this, at least somewhat with the evidential approach (apologetics & hermeneutics), i.e. problematic.
If we want to talk about Christian ethics, then we should approach that subject, biblically & theologically. My thoughts at least.
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, the Text by our brother Bruce.. Eph. 5:3-6 is profound! The Christian life in the first century was at least by Apostolic design, pressed to great spiritual heights! And God does give us the spiritual desire and enablement to be followers and disciples of Jesus! But as we should all really know by experience also, the ‘already but not yet’ tension! Romans chap’s 6-8 (noting chap. 7 right in the middle!)
Like or Dislike:
0
How does God look upon someone who provides False Assurance to an unbeliever? Eg., a well-meaning pastor or lay person who informs a Hell-bound person that they really are a Heaven-bound Christian.
Is it a serious matter to God to give False Assurance to someone? Does Scripture say anything about this?
Suppose someone was baptized when they were very young. And ever since their teens to their late adulthood, they never read the Bible and only attended Church sporadically. Behaviorally, there’s no evidence that there lives are any different than a secularist. Before the baptized person died, a pastor told him that he was a Christian because he was baptized. So he firmly believed that he was a Christian based on the assurance that the pastor gave him. Then he died in a fatal car accident.
Q: Did that pastor do the right thing? Reminding him of his baptism and that because he was baptized, he was a Heaven-bound Christian?
Q: Is God pleased with that Pastor?
Like or Dislike:
0
Certainly there are no hermeneutical principles being violated. After all, Peters experience eventually extends into the whole church.
But the issue is not whether there are principles being taught here (as I have not argued such), but what do we do with the example of Peter. He was a holy spirit filled person who lived with unconfessed sin for years. His culture had influenced him more than Christ or the Old Testament into believing that his racism was okay. Sounds familiar to our current issue.
As a matter of fact, Peter continued to wrestle with this sin after Acts 10. In Gal 2 Paul had to call him out on it. Again, homosexuality is a terrible sin, but I don’t think it is worse than prideful racism.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Peter neglected and covered up the clear teaching. But would he have denied its truth when confronted? Did he? No.
When you were covering up your sins, did you say those are no longer sins, or did you make excuses on how they were not “technically” sins? When you discover your sin, do you say it is not a sin, or do you admit you have been wrong?”
Yes, I cover up sins. I am THAT bad. But don’t get smug. You do too. We all cover up and justify sins. If you don’t think you do, we need to talk.
Of course Peter repented when God spoke from heaven about Peters sin. Who would not. But most homosexuals don’t have the advantage of such an event. But, even in the face of such an event, Peter continued to fall into this sin.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP- “Yes, I cover up sins. I am THAT bad. But don’t get smug. You do too. We all cover up and justify sins.”
I totally agree. But that is different than knowing we sin and not caring.
“Of course Peter repented when God spoke from heaven about Peters sin. Who would not. But most homosexuals don’t have the advantage of such an event. But, even in the face of such an event, Peter continued to fall into this sin.”
But he knew it was a sin. He didn’t pretend it was not. Likewise, God has spoken, through Scripture, about the sin you are discussing in this post. They do have “the advantage of such an event”.
The question is, when confronted with a sin, does one care that is a sin or not.
Like or Dislike:
0
(Continuation of Comment #105)
There are actively gay unrepentant ordained pastors in various churches and denominations. Eg., in the PCUSA, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, etc….
These actively gay pastors do not believe that same-sex behavior is sin. They inform their church members and others that same-sex behavior is not sin and that the answer to “Can Homosexuals Be Christians?” is Yes! And that active same-sex behavior is acceptable before Holy God. And so these gay church members are given assurance by their clergy (both gay and straight clergy) in their liberal church/denomination that they are genuine Christians and Heaven-bound followers and disciples of Christ.
What does Scripture say about these liberal pastors who give such assurances to the sheep, if anything?
Like or Dislike:
1
I hope you are not saying that covering up your sin is the same as denying it as sin when the Bible clearly declares it as sin. If you do then we need to talk.
Whoa, I hope you are not suggesting that the only way that anyone can repent from a sin is for God to speak to them from heaven. This is so Biblically erroneous.
Like or Dislike:
0
You guys have some good point for me to think about. Thank you so much for being so civil here! Great conversation where the issues are really being wrestled with. Many people have brought up that 1 John passage…I don’t know what to do with that. It kills me, not just the homosexual agenda!
Like or Dislike:
0
You can even throw some Baptist in that lot. How about our famous and great humanitarian President James Earl Carter Jr.? The trend, at least in the Western world, is not good for theologically orthodox Christians like me. If this trend holds we will fade in the way of the dinosaurs.
Like or Dislike:
0
telelogist, I think Michael is saying that even though, God spoke from heaven about Peter’s sin that he still struggled with it. How I wish on days when my faith is weak that God would speak out in such a way to renew my spirit and remove my doubting. How many of us would love a visitation from an angel sent with a special message for us, but we live by faith not sight.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sorry, my comment was for R David… It is quite interesting how we prioritize certain sins. I was thinking it was our general sin condition that dooms us not particular practices…..
Like or Dislike:
2
I would have to strongly disagee that Peter’s so-called “sin” here is on the same par as sexual and homosexual sin! And to call this “racism” also goes a bit too far to my mind. Indeed Peter was a Jew, and Jews were not to inter-mingle with Gentiles, simple. The whole character of Judaism was based upon the idea of Jewish separation! Indeed later for 1st. century Jewish Christians this became an issue. Of course brought on by Jewish circumcision (Acts 15, etc.)
We are getting far afield here, both hermeneutically and theologically to my mind! So was James a “bigot”, though he was a strong Jewish Christian? In Galatians, “for until certain people came from James..” (Gal, 2:12). And even in the same sentence Paul can write: “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, and yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.” (Gal. 2:15)
Indeed to understand the whole Jewish issues, we must understand the…
Like or Dislike:
1
Michael, is it possible you have significantly mischaracterized the nature of Peter’s approach toward the Gentiles (see Phil McCheddar — #50)? Are there not covenantal transitions taking place here as the gospel goes out to the Gentile world, where Gentiles as Gentiles are accepted without having to become Jewish to belong to the people of God? Was there not a real God designed shift from God sanctioned Mosaic covenantal perspectives to new covenant perspectives? Would it really be fair and accurate to parallel the view and actions of Peter with the sin of practicing sexual immorality as a true disciple of Jesus Christ?
Like or Dislike:
1
And again Michael, and I know this may come across very blunt, and truly don’t want to offend — please forgive me if it seems so — but if you still want to say that you do not believe that if one practices homosexuality their entire life they are necessarily excluded from the Kingdom of God, would you say that this is so for one who practices all their life things like these:
adultery
fornication
stealing
murder
pedophilia
necrophilia
beastiality
drunkenness
occultism
etc.
Biblically, are these any different from the sin of practicing homosexuality?
Like or Dislike:
1
I am right with Bruce here! The Book of Acts is in some way a book and statement about the covenantal change and transitions that were taking place in the nascent church. And these were going to be both Jews and Gentiles! We see this too in so much of St. Paul’s Letters, (1 Cor. 10:32 / Eph. 2:11-22, etc.)
Like or Dislike:
1
“@jim; I think Michael is saying that even though, God spoke from heaven about Peter’s sin that he still struggled with it.”
I don’t think that’s what Michael meant either. But I would like him to clarify that statement because when I read it, I was concerned that some might use that as an excuse to deny certain sins.
“@jim; It is quite interesting how we prioritize certain sins”
And we should. Although all unrepentant sin will lead us to hell some are more egregious than others, e.g. murder is more egregious than theft. Prioritizing sins was well established in Deut. Even in CMP’s passage in 1 Cor, looking down a bit further “8 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you”
Sexual immorality not only violates the creature but even worse it affects our mystical union with the Creator.
Like or Dislike:
0
Micahael, I have been to say the least a bit critical
of what you have said in this recent article of yours we are discussing, but I truly want to commend you for the humility shown in the comment —— “You guys have some good points for me to think about. Thank you so much for being so civil here! Great conversation where the issues are really being wrestled with. Many people have brought up that 1 John passage…I don’t know what to do with that. It kills me, not just the homosexual agenda!”
In fact one of the things I really appreciate about you is your humilty and transparency. Thank you bro.
Like or Dislike:
0
I just skimmed the previous 20 or so posts, and I see again the idea of “not caring” that it is sin. That is a whole different thing –
There are three things going on here –
1) Realizing that it is sin and trying to overcome
2) Realizing that it is sin and *not* trying to overcome
3) Not realizing it is sin.
This discussion seems to have run through all three scenarios … they are not the same.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Bruce: if you still want to say that you believe that if one practices homosexuality their entire life they are necessarily excluded from the Kingdom of God, would you say that this is so for one who practices all their life things like these:
Lies
Pride
Boast
Unthankful
Lustful thoughts
Disobey your parents
Angry
Soteriologically, are these any different from the sin of practicing homosexuality?
We are all affected by different sins by different degrees. I would not want to judge a person if they are making every effort to resist sin because I am in the same boat on this side of eternity.
Like or Dislike:
1
“Sexual immorality not only violates the creature but even worse it affects our mystical union with the Creator.” Amen! This statement by “teleologist” is what I have been trying to chip away at. SIN, breaks our fellowship with God, and certainly with each other in the Church as the Body of Christ! And I for one, see all sexual sin in this light, especially when and if it continues. Indeed Paul says, “Flee (pheugo, Gk. ‘from or away’) immorality” (1 Cor. 6:18). Here fleeing is like running from the escape of death! Of course here the Greek word is ‘porneia’.. illicit sexual action, man or woman!
Like or Dislike:
0
WE better believe illicit sexual sin will break apart our relationship with God, especially if it is continued, and blatant and glaring, i.e. knowing it is sin! And this also includes ignorance! If we do a concordance study, biblically, this will come to light! And I also write as a pastor, I have seen what sexual sin has done to peoples psyche. There is often great guilt here! Thankfully this comes also from one’s conscience, if one is seeking truth and God.
Like or Dislike:
1
Teleologist, a fair question.
My point was simply to face and underscore the explicit statements of Scripture in passages such as Matt. 7:21-23; Rom. 6:1-2; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:5-6; Heb. 12:14, and 1 Jn. 2:3-6, 3:4-11, etc.. It appears that there are kinds of sinning that vitiates a profession of faith and does exclude from eternal life. I am not saying this – the Bible is saying this. It is not merely an inference, but explicit statements. It seems we need to face what God is saying to us here as difficult as it might be, and interpret a profession of faith in the light of that.
Now, to your point about those making every effort to resist a sin, I am in agreement. What I and some others in this discussion are taking issue with is the notion of practicing a sin as a pattern of life — embracing it, living in it —– while claiming to be regenerated and in Christ. This I will say is a pernicious false teaching — the error of antinomianism.
Like or Dislike:
0
Truth Unites and Divides writes: “Can active practicing homosexuals who don’t believe that their same-sex behavior is a sin, and who therefore live and practice their prolonged sin without acknowledging that it is sin, AND THEN THEY DIE WITHOUT REPENTING OF THEIR SAME-SEX SIN, are they Heaven-Bound Followers and Disciples of Christ?”
Let me rephrase that one for you and see if it changes your answer.
Can active practicing North American greedy capitalists who don’t believe that their greedy capitalistic behavior is a sin, and who therefore live and practice their prolonged sin without acknowledging that it is sin, AND THEN THEY DIE WITHOUT REPENTING OF THEIR GREEDY CAPITALISTIC SIN, are they Heaven-Bound Followers and Disciples of Christ?
Wait… you say, I don’t believe greedy capitalism is a sin… in fact, I don’t even believe that capitalism is greedy.
Well then, haven’t you put yourself in the same boat as homosexuals who don’t acknowledge their behaviour as sin?
Like or Dislike:
0
@126, Michael Bell,
Answer my question and I’ll answer yours.
Like or Dislike:
0
Before all of us engage in theorizing, postulating, and speculating could I humbly ask that the Biblical passages I gave as examples be actually read. What are they saying? I know they are difficult, but what is God saying?
Like or Dislike:
0
Bruce (116),
I don’t think so. Peter’s sin was not unlike the sin of the pharisees. He should have know the depth of the law and the love that God had for Gentiles. Yes, the encounter was a kick in the butt for Peter, but it was nothing more than a reminder.
To say that he was decieved from his culture is fine. But many homosexuals are decieved from their culture.
Remember, false teachers (in this case pastors who teach homosexuality is not really a sin), do lead people astray, even Christians. But for the grace of God, we are all down that creek. Some more decieved than others, but we are all somewhat led astray. I just pray that mine is not in an area that is so destructive as homosexuality.
Like or Dislike:
0
A Christian (my definition):
Someone who is declared righteous for Jesus’ sake…and believes it.
Like or Dislike:
0
And thanks for your kindness Bruce. You rock brother.
Like or Dislike:
0
For what it’s worth, this discussion has been really good for me! I appreciate the Bruce’s and Fr. Roberts who would keep the gospel pure and on target (the target is true after all), and I appreciate the CMPs and I appreciate those who think more like me, and would add “wiggle room” for lack of a better phrase (and I’m sure there is a better phrase
)
TU&D’s moniker is exactly what is happening here. We all are striving for truth, and while it unites us on most points, it’s dividing on this one. Is that so wrong?
I know I NEED people like Bruce and Fr Robert to keep me on task, or I’d turn into a fricken Wiccan. I humbly disagree with their application, but agree with virtually all of their points.
I think it’s great and I love to hear how other bros and sis’s in Christ are applying their belief system.
Like or Dislike:
0
@truth unites and divides
To be honest, I don’t know what the answer is.
As an Arminian I believe that those who persist in sin and endangering their eternal destiny. But what if we are blind to our sins as I am sure that all of us are to some extent.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, before I part from the discussion I would like to make one final observation. It seems that this subject is part of a much larger subject within which the question about homosexuality is simply the presenting issue. I think that the larger concern is the question of the neccesity of bowing to the Lordship of Christ in a genuine profession of faith. As I think is probably obvious by now I am constrained to understand the Bible to affirm the neccesity of bowing to Christ as Lord over one’s life as inherently part of the gospel. Not in any way the perfection of living one’s life in response to that Lordship, but truly concerning the direction of one’s life. I would appeal to you Michael to rethink your position.
Like or Dislike:
0
“To be honest, I don’t know what the answer is.”
Ditto to your question, Michael Bell.
“As an Arminian I believe that those who persist in sin are endangering their eternal destiny.”
Michael Bell, do you affirm Scripture’s teaching that same-sex behavior is sin?
Like or Dislike:
0
And Michael I continue to respect you and thank you for all your labors to renew the mind and make faithful disciples of Jesus Christ. Carry on!
I am thankful too for all of the thoughtful participants in this dialogue. Particular hats off to Mike O and Fr. Robert for your kind and helpful interaction with myself. Blessings!
Like or Dislike:
0
This is the logical conclusion of the non-Lordship “carnal Christian” theology.
It’s a half truth. Of course any type of sinner can be savED. But many Scriptures make it clear that a continuing, unrepentant sinner can not be a believer (present tense). Just read 1 John!
According to CMP, fruit is not important to show you are a believer. Could a practicing pedaphile be a Christian and keep raping 3 year olds? How about a murder?
You can’t take one verse on Peter’s sin (plus add a what if) and work out your whole theology. Just like you can’t take a few people from church history who believed in baptismal regeneration and assume they were still saved (see the RCC post).
Like or Dislike:
1
Awe Bruce, indeed Jude 1: 4, “For admission has secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” (RSV) This always and finally comes around, these people are in a special class! Yes, were all sinners, but “Aselgeia” (Gk.) “lasciviousness” – denotes excess and licentiousness, or the absence of restraint, i.e. indecent behavior! And this is just what we are seeing, even in the church, there is almost no sexual control in our culture today! Do what ever you want! God doesn’t care, after all He made us to be free. This is the kind of stuff one hears today!
Like or Dislike:
1
CMP: I am with Bruce here! I think you have made a wrong turn on this subject, and I too pray you re-think this issue! There can be no doubt this encroaches the Gospel and the Lordship of Christ! But again, this is how I see it anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0
This thread is on the verge of branching out into sub topics because no matter how you label sin, it is what it is. How do we know what sin is? By the Law, The Ten Commandments. God’s holiness demands a death sentence penalty (Hell) for lawbreakers, therefore the Law can only condemn and show sinners the need of a way to satisfy the penalty, unless the person is good with going to hell. God’s law demands perfection, so the breaking of one law is considered breaking all. Now what? If Scripture ended here, then what? Stop and think of the ramifications for all of humanity if Jesus Christ and grace were removed from our various theological positions? Would we really be going down this path or would our emphasis be the need of a Savior regardless of a persons sexual orentation? Sometimes I believe we bicker and over think today’s social issues and not really absorb what the whole of Scripture is saying to us for how it applies to us today. In other words, poor exegesis.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Just like you can’t take a few people from church history who believed in baptismal regeneration and assume they were still saved (see the RCC post).”
Which RCC post is that? Besides, it’s not just the RCC who believe in Baptismal Regeneration. Lutherans do too. They baptize infants, sometimes just weeks or months old. And then they declare to the parents that the child is eternally saved.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Truth Unites… and Divides… wrote: “Michael Bell, do you affirm Scripture’s teaching that same-sex behavior is sin?”
That is what I believe, Yes.
I am also afraid that, like on so many other issues, I might someday be proven to be wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0
If someone identifies themselves by their sin and are unrepentant, we should not placate them in their sin as they will be damned to Hell.
Like or Dislike:
0
Indeed when the Church looks just like ‘the world’, then it is very hard to see and define that “holiness” or santification..”without which no one will see the Lord.” (Heb. 12: 14)…note here too, 1 Cor. 5: 9-13. WE are in rough times for both the visible church and the culture. One almost cannot see much difference! Apostasy is HERE!
Like or Dislike:
0
Note I have seen the Anglican Communion go to ‘hell in a hand-basket’, especially in the last 25 years or so! And now the “emergents” are screwing-up past Evangelical Churches! 2 Timothy 3 applies even more, NOW!
Like or Dislike:
0
Amen, especially verse 5.
Like or Dislike:
0
Can Homosexuals Be Christians?
Can Pedophiles Be Christians?
There are both homosexual pedophiles and heterosexual pedophiles. Let’s say that the pedophiles referenced in the question have sex only with young teen-age minors. Let’s say ages 11 and above.
Then let’s re-ask the question above, with slight variation:
“Can active practicing pedophiles who don’t believe that their pedophile behavior is a sin, and who therefore live and practice their prolonged sin without acknowledging that it is sin, AND THEN THEY DIE WITHOUT REPENTING OF THEIR pedophilic SIN, are they Heaven-Bound Followers and Disciples of Christ?”
Like or Dislike:
0
To Truth Unites ….
The answer: Most definitely NOT!
Like or Dislike:
0
Amen! 1 Cor. 6: 9 is about as plain as it gets, noting too, Eph. 5:5! The latter is a section, from Eph. 5:3-14, etc. the Gentile Christian even in Paul’s time was called upon to renounce the pagain culture! Looking back and remembering his Baptism: “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light. Look carefully then you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil.” (Verses 14-16) WE still live in a very “evil” age spiritually!
Like or Dislike:
0
(Part 1 of 2)
I submit for consideration that the following two are roughly equivalent:
o Can Homosexuals Be Christians?
o Can Pedophiles Be Christians?
Expanded and nuanced to these rough equivalencies:
o “Can active practicing homosexuals who don’t believe that their same-sex behavior is a sin, and who therefore live and practice their prolonged sin without acknowledging that it is sin, AND THEN THEY DIE WITHOUT REPENTING OF THEIR SAME-SEX SIN, are they Heaven-Bound Followers and Disciples of Christ?”
o ““Can active practicing pedophiles who don’t believe that their pedophile behavior is a sin, and who therefore live and practice their prolonged sin without acknowledging that it is sin, AND THEN THEY DIE WITHOUT REPENTING OF THEIR PEDOPHILIC SIN, are they Heaven-Bound Followers and Disciples of Christ?”
Like or Dislike:
0
@ TUAD
I quoted paedophilia and bestiality up for the same reasons on another blog and someone pointed out that it’s not an apples-with-apples comparison to homosexuality, because the latter involves consensual sex whereas the former does not.
Like or Dislike:
0
(Part 2 of 2)
Given the preceding, which is the more Biblically Loving action for the devoted follower and disciple of Christ:
(A) Softly and firmly informing an active homosexual that their same-sex behavior is NOT a sin. Or…
(B) To be purposefully silent on the matter, and to purposefully withhold Scripture’s timeless and transcendent teaching that same-sex behavior is sin to the active homosexual, thereby leaving the active homosexual to believe that his/her same-sex behavior is not a sin. Or…
(C) Softly and firmly informing an active homosexual that God’s Holy Word, His Bible, clearly teaches that same-sex behavior is a sin.
What is the most Biblically loving action? (A), (B), or (C)?
Like or Dislike:
0
That’s a C for me!
Like or Dislike:
0
@152, JFDU,
I also had a similar blog conversation elsewhere. Also, notice my initial pedophile question where I stated that the minor was 11 years and older.
Here was my reply: Some pedophiles argue that their pedophile relationship represents two consenting people. Folks ask the minor: “Did you consent?” The minor says, “Yes.” The pedophile says, “See?”
——
P.S. I didn’t really scan that thread you linked to, but I think the following excerpt was absolutely spot-on and terrific:
“However unlike the popular trend, he never justified his homosexuality by trying to reinterpret the Bible to make him feel better about himself. In fact he told me point blank, “John I am living in sin and if I stay this way I know I’ll end up in hell, but that doesn’t change God’s truth and who Christ is, which is why I need to tell you about Him”.
This guy knows.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks TUAD.
That will always stay with me because this was the guy who introduced me to Christ (for a lack of a better term).
Unfortunately I lost contact with him over the years. I’d be curious to watch him interact in some of these conversations. His theology was strongly influenced by his patristic studies, so I’m not sure if that had anything to do with his stance on the whole thing.
Like or Dislike:
0
I reject this premise as a basis for morality. Many secularists use this argument as well. Just because something is consensual it still doesn’t make it right. At one point slavery was consensual out of cultural custom. Human sacrifice was consensual in the same way. Gunfights in the old west are consensual. Is consensual incest moral? What about consensual polygamy? The standard cannot be based on human determination but rather the Word of God.
Like or Dislike:
0
@ teleo
You’re absolutely right. Drug use and dealing could fall in the same category of “consensual exchange”
Like or Dislike:
0
Rick @149, Fr. Robert @154, and JFDU @156,
It’s good to see your most Biblically faithful answers! Much thanks!
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m not saying anything about whether you can be a homosexual Christian in this post – but I’ve noticed the comparison to homosexuality to pedophelia, beastiality, and murder in a good portion of the last comments.
One difference – and I’m not saying this to justify homosexuality at all – is that pedophelia, beastiality and murder are all ILLEGAL and EVERYONE KNOWS THEY ARE WRONG. Homosexuality is NOT ILLEGAL and NOT EVERYONE KNOWS IT IS WRONG. We do, but not everyone.
That’s a big difference and I think it’s dangerous to take the “well then what do you say about pedophelia” angle when discussing whether or not someone can do it and be a Christian.
In fact, if it’s fair to say it’s “just like” sins that are MORE serious (illegal), it’s fair to say it’s “just like” sins that are LESS serious (gluttony).
I’m not saying it’s OK, and I’m not even answering the original question. I just think the comparisons being made are wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0
Maybe “unfair” would be a better choice of words than “wrong” to end my prev post.
Again, I’m not trying to justify homosexuality – but it seemed odd to me how willing the commenters here were, to lump homosexuality in with sins that are even more ahborant, and and how difficult it was for Christians to see the error in that logic (because they are *all* abhorent, but they are not all ILLEGAL and OBVIOUSLY abhorent to the world.
I know I said this already, but I just think it’s an unfair comparison.
Like or Dislike:
0
http://thesewordsmin.blogspot.com/2011/11/outrage-at-child-rape-is-dependent-upon.html Here is an article that explains the fact that revulsion at child rape is largely a construct of the Biblical worldview. If we lose this construct, child rape will be largely accepted again.
Like or Dislike:
1
Building on what Mike O and Chris Nelson have just said…
That does sound outrageous, but divorce and contraception also were once outrageous to Christian culture. They went from outrageous to tolerated to commonplace even among Christians. Homosexuality seems to be on the same track.
Like or Dislike:
1
I would agree with that, Irene. And I don’t think it’s a good thing (while the others, I think, were).
I agree with pretty much everyone here that the sin is intolerable – IT IS SIN. But what are we going to do with the sinner? Tolerate them. If they can be welcomed into an environment where their sin is not accepted but they are, they will have to eventually “choose whom they will serve.” This is where the Bible is a stench to some and a sweet fragrance to others.
It IS possible to welcome the sinner without welcoming their sin. And as “Truth unites … and divides” moniker states, they will either unite with us, or not. But if not, it won’t be because WE rejected THEM, it will be because THEY rejected CHRIST.
Like or Dislike:
1
God forbid that homosexuals don’t find a lasting relationship with Christ (and freedom from their sin) because we rejected them. The gospel is repulsive enough to some on it’s own merit. It certainly doesn’t need our help to keep the sinners away.
We all need Christ to free us from our sin. Let’s at least not add to the stench of the gospel by being in their way.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mike O,
What’s your answer to the question in #153? (A), (B), or (C)?
Like or Dislike:
0
C.
Like or Dislike:
0
According to the OT and NT Covenant homosexuality, not to mention the other sins of beastiality, pedophelia, etc. are great sins (noting Holy Scripture, and the Judeo-Christian world-view). But indeed there is now great ignorance in our world of Postmodernity! But ignorance is no excuse for sin! Nothing that conscience can be “seared” (cauterized) by sin – 1 Tim. 4:2, here the reference is to apostates whose consciences are branded with the effects of sin! “For the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6: 23) (spiritual, finally the “second death”.)
Like or Dislike:
0
In reality, true Christians according to Paul, are.. “For we ARE the aroma of Christ “to God” among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life..” (2 Cor. 2: 15-16, etc.)
Like or Dislike:
1
I agree, Fr Robert. I’m just saying we need to allow homosexuals to work through the problem they are dealing with. In the environment you propose, if handled with love and help, they may find the truth and be set free.
I am not advocating we try to appease them and certainly not to change the clear truth of scripture. But I am advocating we let them close and work out their faith … just like we did … and are. If they reject the clear truth, they are free to leave. But if they choose to stay they should be fully aware that their lifestyle is not consistent with scripture. And if they do choose to stay, let the church be a place they can find restoration rather than rejection.
Like or Dislike:
1
@Mike: True, we are to be “light” and “life” ourselves, even as personal sinful beings, as Paul says again: “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us.” (2 Cor. 4:7) But note also, true Christians somehow bare something of the ‘death and the life of Jesus’ (verses 10-11). Amazing Grace!
Like or Dislike:
1
I think we have to allow for a couple of scenarios along these lines that Mike O. seems to be referring to. If the agent in regeneration and sanctification in the life of
the Christian is the Holy Spirit, we should not create some arbitrary superficial rules to impose upon the life of another person to remedy what we suppose to be their carnal weaknesses. It is the Spirit’s role to convict us of the sin that remains in our life and provide the true motivation to get free from sin. Shall I decide that someone is a different class of Christian because the Spirit is taking His time to convict him of a particularly sinful area that needs attention in his life, oftentimes an area that the Spirit helped someone else conquer with relative ease? In this I mean, a struggle to overcome homosexual sin must be present in the life of the homosexual. Allow for grace to work in their lives; we can encourage, love and pray for those who are struggling to overcome this recognized sin.
Like or Dislike:
0
Amen Rick! Indeed ALL Christians who are regenerate, still live in Romans 7:13-25, but also in Romans 8! That’s again, the way I see it anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0
Getting back to the original question – Can a person be a homosexual and a Christian at the same time. I light of all I have seen in this discussion, I still think the answer is yes, but we as Christians need to be careful not to compromise the truth of scripture. On that point, I am 100% on board with what our attitude toward homosexual(ITY) should be – it is abhorent.
Given that, what should be our attitude toward homosexual(S). We should be welcoming and accepting of them as sinful creatures in need of grace as much as we are.
I heard a quote yesterday in church that applies here “It’s not a problem to solve, rather a tension to manage.” Bottom line is, there are homosexuals who have found the savior. And they have not worked out that area of their life yet. While it is not OK, it is reality. And in the face of that reality, how should we respond? There’s a tension there. Truth AND grace AND patience.
Like or Dislike:
0
Some (myself included), left to their own unbridled tendencies, would sacrifice truth in favor of patience. Some, on the other hand, would sacrifice patience in favor of truth.
That is why I value this discussion – I need brothers and sisters like you to keep my theology in line. And maybe you need brothers like me to keep your eyes on the mission – there are a billion seared souls out there that Jesus loves. Who will save them? Jesus needs us to reach them. We can either be in the way, or we can pave the way. I, for one, want to be one that paves the way. But with that said, I continually need to self-correct myself so I am paving the way to CHRIST, not just FEELING LOVED. And for that I thank you all for keeping my eyes on the truth, non just the mission.
Like or Dislike:
0
(A) Softly and firmly informing an active homosexual that their same-sex behavior is NOT a sin. Or…
(B) To be purposefully silent on the matter, and to purposefully withhold Scripture’s timeless and transcendent teaching that same-sex behavior is sin to the active homosexual, thereby leaving the active homosexual to believe that his/her same-sex behavior is not a sin.
—–
“I, for one, want to be one that paves the way.”
Can actions (A) or (B) above pave the way to Hell for an active, unrepentant Homosexual?
Like or Dislike:
0
Yup. And that’s exactly why my next sentence was:
“But with that said, I continually need to self-correct myself so I am paving the way to CHRIST, not just FEELING LOVED.”
Like or Dislike:
1
Certainly a homosexual can become a Christian. But, having entered into a relationship with Jesus and being filled with the Holy Spirit, I can’t see how that person could remain a homosexual.
When I became a Christian, the Holy Spirit pointed out to me what sin is — things that I had never recognized as being an affront to God. That should happen with gays, too, at which point they will work with the Holy Spirit to be freed from the bondage of homosexuality.
1 John 3:6 says that no one in Christ keeps on sinning. The verb is one of continuous action and refers to sin habits, that is, sins we commit over and over again. None of us will ever be sin-free, but we can break sin habits in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Some homosexuals will never desire someone of the same sex again once in Christ. Others might as sin habits die hard. But people who cavalierly continue in gay lifestyles, saying God is fine with their sin, will spend eternity apart from him.
Like or Dislike:
0
“But with that said, I continually need to self-correct myself so I am paving the way to CHRIST, not just FEELING LOVED.”
That’s really good self-awareness Mike O. Good job.
Pssssst! Satan has a dirty little secret that he doesn’t want known:
Satan loves to love people into Hell. He does!
Satan loves people into Hell.
Imagine that. Not only that, but he’ll tell folks that God is a hater. Can you imagine that?
Satan loves people into Hell.
Of course, it’s a counterfeit love, but it feels good to so many people.
Jesus talks about a Narrow Gate and a Wide Gate. Both gates advertise love.
Narrow gate’s harder. Something about denying oneself and carrying a cross. Repentance of sin and hard stuff like that. That’s love?
Wide gate: Jesus loves you and same-sex behavior is NOT a sin that you need to repent of. That’s the love we want churches and pastors to preach! Can I get a amen?
Like or Dislike:
0
I disagree with you that comparing bestiality, pedophilia and homosexuality is unfair. Your use of secular jurisprudence to judge the severity of a sin is incorrect. I am not suggesting we want to change our country into a theocracy but our position on morality must be based on the Bible. As I pointed out before in 1Cor 6:18 all these sins are sexual immoralities, unlike other sins that one commits outside of the body this is against one’s own body.
Like or Dislike:
0
Pt 1/2 I share your concern that we shouldn’t demonize the sinner and we must keep 1Pet 3:15 in mind at all times. However, I do have a tough time separating the sinner from the sin. I know this has been said over and over again in this thread that we need to distinguish the rebellious sinner who refuses to acknowledge sins and the Christian who continues to struggle with his sins. It sounds nice to say that love the sinner but hate the sin but I don’t see how that is possible when a sinner continually commits sexually immoral sins.
Like or Dislike:
0
Pt 2/2 To deviate from this a bit and use another analogy, what if you have a Christian who is a serial killer and continues to kill people for the pleasure of killing. Would you still love this sinner the same way that you love another sinner who doesn’t commit this sin? I know this is exaggerated and I am not suggesting we ostracize individuals with this kind of sins but we can’t be cavalier and just say we love the sinner no matter what the sin is. These are thorny issues that Christians walk a very fine line. May God give us the wisdom to handle every situation that we encounter?
Like or Dislike:
0
@CMP: Maybe we need to have a bit more than 1000 char limit.
Like or Dislike:
0
Amen there “teleologist”! #30 Sexual sin is always against one’s own body. This with the doctrine of God, is the whole issue! Our God is a jealous God! (Ex, 20:5 ; 34: 14 / Zech. 1:14 ; 8:2) . . . Note, St. Paul in 2 Cor. 11:2.
We can also note how God uses the term “adultery” (adulterers) for his people in the OT! (Hosea 7: 4)
Like or Dislike:
0
If I call myself by the name of Christ, I must deny my flesh, pick up my cross and follow Him.
When I fall into sin, I must ask his forgiveness, pick up my cross again, and follow Him.
If I struggle with sin, I must NEVER identify myself with that sin (i.e. calling oneself a “homosexual”), and I must ask His help and direction to bear my cross to the end.
And I must consistantly deny my flesh and follow Him.
Here’s the deal: who is your heart for? There are many who agree with Christ’s teachings but do not seek him actively. Are they worthy of the kingdom? Jesus says no (putting your hand to the plow and looking back anyone?). Does it sometimes takes time to convict someone of their sin? Sure! (the aforementioned example of Peter and the Gentiles.) However, Peter was not sinning against his own body by allowing somethine he KNEW to be corrupt to take root in his flesh. His eyes had yet to be opened to the truth.
Anyone practicing homosexual sin can SEE that the Word…
Like or Dislike:
0
Forbids homosexual sin. They have no excuse for practicing it, the same as any alcoholic or abuser or thief or adulterer. If they fall into sin, they should be repentent and once again deny their flesh and follow Him. If they are glorying in their lifestyle, then I would say, like anyone who does not deny their flesh or repent of their sin consistantly, they do not really follow Christ.
Salvation involves DAILY submission to Christ. If you are not following Him and renewing your love to Him daily,
Do you love Him at all?
Like or Dislike:
0
I have read 1Corth18 concerning the sin against one’s body and the interface of that with God being a jealous God concerning adultery. A simple question I have though, in the OT , didn’t a lot of people have handmaids and would not that have been considered adultery. Was it acceptable practice? Was it condemned
Like or Dislike:
0
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.
(Hebrews 10:26-27 ESV)
Like or Dislike:
0
Are you confusing polygamy with adultery? Adultery is certainly a more egregious sin and is condemned along with homosexuality. Polygamy on the other hand is certainly not condemned as harshly although it is still a sin and against the command of God. It was God’s command that marriage is meant for one man and one woman (no gay marriages) Gen. 2:24, Dt 17:17. The Lord reaffirmed this ordinance in Mt 19:4-6 and later by Paul to the elder qualifications because as a leader they must be beyond reproach.
Like or Dislike:
0
Was Hitler a murderous Christian? Was Judas a betraying Christian-He was a disciple and Christ prayed from the cross, “father, forgive them”? What is repentance? Is there such a thing as a repentant christian? What about an unregenerate christian? I think that the concept of a “homosexual Christian” is a contradiction, at least in terms. That contradiction is an inversion of language calculatingly–and successfully– used by homosexual activist to advance their agenda on the whole world, and sadly the church, and its working!
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] SOURCE: C. Michael Patton [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
It seems that important perspectives are absent in this analysis. For instance, Paul addressed issues of immorality rather directly … especially within his epistle to the Church at Corinth.
In it he noted that we are not to associate with one who calls himself a christian but is engaged in, as a practice, among others behaviors, fornication.
Indeed, they are to be ostracized should they ignore efforts at restoration. This Paul explained was not merely to protect the larger church from the spiritual dynamics of sin at loose within the body … but was, more importantly, addressing the tenuous state of the offending couples salvation.
Remember, Paul not only upbraided them (the church at Corinth) for their false compassion … he actually turned the offending parties “over to Satan” in order to preserve their salvation.
Want to further consider God’s perspective on such lifestyles? Revisit the pronouncements of Christ over the seven churches found within the first few books of Revelation.
We lack true compassion when we seek to avoid judging sins which place in jeopardy those who engage in them.
Rob Portman styled reasoning has no place within our approach to such such critical matters.
More Comments: