Choosing between Truth and Love?

FireDragon76 said:

Rebel, we think all relationships require discernment, not just gay peoples.

We do have gay people as full members, including active in ministry. Some of the most active people in our church are gay.

Click to expand...

So it seem that is your answer to the question "Then your position is engaging in same sex sexual relations is not sin? If this be the case and your church agrees with you then they would allow full membership with sacraments."

Which would infer that these homosexuals are not celibate, and would this mean you are indeed teaching false doctrine, just like one who teaching those who justify gluttony or who justify impenitently practicing any known sin as being consistent with saving faith.

In response to which the typical liberal recourse is that of a false dichotomy of portraying liberals as the shining knights of compassion, with the church being all about a community of love and caring and deep meaningful relationships, including homosexual unions, defending such as victims of boogeyman Christians whom they demonize as modern day Pharisees./

However, the fact is there is a third alternative, of "of some have compassion, making a difference: (Jude 22) comforting the feebleminded, supporting the weak, being patient toward all, (1 Thessalonians 5:14) but it also means to "warn them that are unruly," (1 Thessalonians 5:14)" And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh," (Jude 23) with a belief in traditional Biblical moral absolutes, with an emphasis on personal and corporate holiness, and even disciplining the impenitent such as "be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner..." (1 Corinthians 5:11)

God hates a false balance.

And contrary to the shameless sophism sometimes used to deny it, the fact is that God does use believers as instruments of conviction as with Peter, whom the Lord use to convict his audience of their desperate need for salvation lest they end up being Jesus footstool as His enemies.

FireDragon76 said:

Actually, it means just that. That's what we mean by the alien righteousness of Christ that is imputed to us. God reckons us as righteous despite the fact we are sinners.

Click to expand...

But which is appropriated by Abrahamic-type faith, which is penitent and characterized by following the Lord Jesus, not simply in showing mercy and grace in positive ways as per your false dichotomy, but in personal holiness, and repentance when convicted of not doing so.

But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. (Romans 6:17-19)

FireDragon76 said:

Who are you to judge who is, and is not, sufficiently repentant? Can you peer into peoples souls?

Jesus and Paul have shown us the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Love, patience, joy, peace, long-suffering, all that good stuff. Nowhere in that list do I see things like "heterosexuality"

Click to expand...

That is all you see. Which is typical liberal myopia. How about,

And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed. (2 Corinthians 12:21)

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Corinthians 6:17-18-7:1)

One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; (Titus 1:12-13)

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (1 Corinthians 6:9)

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)

And rather than setting up a false dichotomy btwn prioritizing trust, consent, and responsibility rather than trying to uphold "patriarchal bronze age and iron age values about what a family looks like," since the attacker is in a legal union other than that, in-stead, teachers such as Jesus and Paul upheld what liberals denigrate as also being about trust, consent, and responsibility.

And again, the Lord did not sanction any other legal union than btwn male and female, which he specified.

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:4-6)

Conversely, what God hath (sexually) placed asunder, let no man join together.

redleghunter said:

Don't know what you mean reference "Biblicism." It seems you are using this excuse to not engage in Biblical exegesis.

Click to expand...

I think it's a pejorative directed at people who seek to follow the word of God as opposed to the postmodern word of man preached from too many pulpits every Sunday.

redleghunter said:

Therefore, according to your pastor and by extension you the unrighteousness of heterosexuals disobeying God is justification to condone all unrepentant sin?

Click to expand...

No. My pastor is saying he has personal familiarity with evil, and it doesn't look like two gay men that love each other.

redleghunter said:

If I surveyed everyone from Non-Denominational, to Presbyterian, to Methodist to Roman Catholic and many more, I am sure we would all agree anyone is welcome to come to their church to hear the Word of God and hear the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15 and Luke 24).

However, welcoming all to hear the Gospel is much different than becoming a church member or partner. As the linked article (Please all read before commenting) quotes Tim Keller "the world is not divided into sinners and saints, but repentant and unrepentant sinners. The prerequisite for joining the family of God isn’t to clean yourself up, but to allow Jesus to clean you up. That means turning from sins, not clinging to them."

And this is "this requires a correct understanding of sin, of the church, and of Christ’s sacraments."

Therefore, the distinction I note is yes, all are welcome because we know "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17), but it is what happens after hearing which determines if one becomes part of the Body of Christ, His church.

The heart of the linked article below is whether or not churches should include unrepentant LGBT families to fully participate in the life of the church. We are not speaking of repentant celibate same sex attracted people, but LGBT who have entered into a union, some with children. Does your church allow this and if they do why?

http://www.breakpoint.org/2018/09/b...mail&utm_term=0_84bd2dc76d-e97e8b64e0-8592533

Final note: It is acknowledged even in the article that all sins condemn us. This is a matter of (1) if one even acknowledges their sin as sin and (2) repentance of, turning from, their sins.

Click to expand...

Suppose in your congregation you have 150 people and 2 or 5 of them are gay, and you want to help people stop sinning. Be sure you don't forget the other 145 to 148 people.

Considering how serious the warning is --

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

It's an uncomfortable list, because it didn't stop at just some things we don't do....but has even very common things.

1. Sexual immorality (every form)
2. Idolatry -- making anything more important in your heart than God, such as a new car, or perhaps a favorite sports team, or...your work...
3. Adultery (which Christ taught us includes lusting in the heart even without acting on it)
4. Sodomy (the topic in the OP)
5. Theft
6. Greed.... (Modern America...)
7. Drunkenness
8. Reviling..... since this means any and every last kind of negative talking about others, including public figures, both current and previous....we've got one here that a lot of the members of the congregation need to repent of even just for what they said during the last week or two quite likely.
Examples -- Obama was "_(negative characterization_)"
Trump is "_(negative characterization_)"
9. Swindling -- includes fraud of all kinds, misrepresentations, etc.


We've all fallen short, just as you said, but it won't be enough for a pastor to pick out a sin few in the church are doing and focus on that sin of those people (sometimes even it's not in the church at all, and it's focusing on the sin of others, not us...)

I feel the pastor needs to talk about all the actual sins in his congregation, to talk about reviling and about greed, especially, since these are common American sins that any congregation is struggling with. But it's not about how someone(s) are sinful and we are not.

It's about how we all are sinful in some ways we've not fully come to honest confession on at points in life, and need conversion, change, repentance, true confession.

Perhaps the only safe course really is the full list, reading the full list from Paul above, fully, without singling out a sin we aren't personally doing in a way that de-emphasizes all the others in the list.

And the help is to realize how we've all fallen short, and the amazing grace through Christ, that our Father forgives us if we confess our sins, meaning all of them, our general sinful nature, and all the instances we fall short, and this humble confession is what results in our being cleaned (1 John chapter 1). In that when we realize and admit we are sinful, that's the crucial moment, for all of us, that leads to real change.

FireDragon76 said:

No. My pastor is saying he has personal familiarity with evil, and it doesn't look like two gay men that love each other.

Click to expand...

Evil doesn't always look like evil. Our flesh loves sin, and it looks good, sounds good and feels good to us. Eve thought that the fruit was pleasing to the eye, but what she was feeling was lust. She was deceived. That is why we must trust God and obey His commandments, because our own perception of what is good and evil deceives us. Sin looks good and enticing at first, but then it leads to death.

All churches have some unrepentant sinners participating fully in the church.

It's anyone that isn't fully loving one of their neighbors, for example. Meaning most of the congregation, for example.

redleghunter said:

Luther was not antinomian.

“Against the Antinomians,” Excerpts


By Martin Luther

1539


[Luther, Martin. “Against the Antinomians.” 1539. In Luther’s Works. Volume 47: Christian in Society IV. Edited by Franklin Sherman. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1971. Pages 109–115.] All footnotes are taken from this edition.

It is most surprising to me that anyone can claim that I reject the law or the Ten Commandments, since there is available, in more than one edition, my exposition of the Ten Commandments, which furthermore are daily preached and practiced in our churches. (I am not even mentioning the Confession and the Apology and our other books). Furthermore, the commandments are sung in two versions, as well as painted, printed, carved, and recited by the children morning, noon, and night.[1] I know of no manner in which we do not use them, unless it be that we unfortunately do not practice and paint them with our deeds and our life as we should. I myself, as old and as learned as I am, recite the commandments daily word for word like a child. So if anyone perchance gained some other impression from my writings and yet saw and perceived that I stressed the catechism so greatly, he might in all fairness have addressed me and said, “Dear Dr. Luther, how is it that you emphasize the Ten Commandments so much, though your teaching is that they are to be discarded?” That is what they should have done, and not worked secretly behind my back and waited for my death, after which they could make of me what they would.[2] Ah well, let them be forgiven who cease doing this.


To be sure, I did teach, and still teach, that sinners shall be stirred to repentance through the preaching or the contemplation of the passion of Christ, so that they might see the enormity of God's wrath over sin, and learn that there is no other remedy for this than the death of God’s Son. This doctrine is not mine, but St. Bernard’s.[3] What am I saying? St. Bernard’s? It is the message of all of Christendom, of all the prophets and apostles. But how can you deduce from this that the law is to be cast aside? I cannot find such a deduction in my logic textbook. I should like to see or hear the master who could demonstrate it.

When Isaiah 53 [:8] declares that God has “stricken him for the transgression of my people,” tell me, my dear fellow, does this proclamation of Christ's suffering and of his being stricken for our sin imply that the law is cast away? What does this expression, “for the transgression of my people,” mean? Does it not mean “because my people sinned against my law and did not keep my law”? Or does anyone imagine that there can be sin where there is no law? Whoever abolishes the law must simultaneously abolish sin. If he permits sin to stand, he must most certainly permit the law to stand; for according to Romans 5 [:13], where there is no law there is no sin. And if there is no sin, then Christ is nothing. Why should he die if there were no sin or law for which he must die? It is apparent from this that the devil's purpose in this fanaticism is not to remove the law but to remove Christ, the fulfiller of the law.

https://www.nlnrac.org/node/251​

I recommend everyone read the entire discourse.

Click to expand...

I'm very familiar with that work. It would be unwise to focus only on parts of Luther's writings and declare that the Lutheran teaching on a particular matter. We simply do not emphasize the third use of the law, or the regulation of the Scriptures, in the way some Reformed do. Our ethics are humanistic and secular, because we believe that is in accordance with the incarnation of the Son of God. Jesus made humanity and human needs, not blind obedience to God, the proper center of human ethical reflection.

FireDragon76 said:

Jesus made humanity, not blind obedience to God, the proper center of human ethical reflection.

Click to expand...

This must be the most anti-christian, gospel-corrupting, Scripture-twisting comment I have ever heard.

Matthew 16:23

Emli said:

This must be the most anti-christian, gospel-corrupting, Scripture-twisting comment I have ever heard.

Matthew 16:23

Click to expand...

Have you heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer? What I am talking about is a pattern of theological and ethical reflection that is more in accordance with his approach. It is simply the same Lutheran approach that is contextualized for a world come of age.

But at any rate, I remember our Lord declared us blessed when we are persecuted for righteousness sake, because the prophets were persecuted likewise. Sometimes the truth divides people.

Here is some good background reading on Bonhoeffer's work, particularly his thoughts on "religionless Christianity", something that has been influential in our church, and other similar churches. http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2010/12/letters-from-cell-92-part-1-new.html

Our church has absolutely no rules about who joins our church on a Sunday for worship. We deliberately have no fixed membership, so that isn't an issue. We believe we are called to minister the word of God to everyone who will listen, and show compassion and love to anyone who will accept it. Every one of us is a sinner, and though ideally all are repentant of their sin, those who are not repentant may find their hearts softened by hearing His Word and experiencing the love of Christ.

It's ironic because last Sunday's sermon was on the Syrophonecia woman. Even our Lord didn't feel the need to appear to be in the right all the time, but to be in conversation with all sorts of people, even people who were outsiders that did not necessarily share his cultures religious viewpoints. Being open to others, and willing to risk being wrong for the sake of our neighbor, are part of having the sort of intellectual and spiritual integrity that is fitting a follower of Jesus.

FireDragon76 said:

Have you heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer? What I am talking about is a pattern of theological and ethical reflection that is more in accordance with his approach. It is simply the same Lutheran approach that is contextualized for a world come of age.

But at any rate, I remember our Lord declared us blessed when we are persecuted for righteousness sake, because the prophets were persecuted likewise. Sometimes the truth divides people.

Here is some good background reading on Bonhoeffer's work, particularly his thoughts on "religionless Christianity", something that has been influential in our church, and other similar churches. http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2010/12/letters-from-cell-92-part-1-new.html

Click to expand...

Thank you, but I would rather not read it. Everything you speak seems to be direct rebellion against God, and not in the way that Jesus appeared "rebellious" when He healed on the Sabbath, going against the doctrines of man, as you seem to believe (correct me if I'm wrong about your views). But in a way that ignores 90% of what Jesus taught us and twists the rest to suit your man-made doctrines. Jesus was the perfect image of God, and God is 100% good and righteous. He has told us to be perfect like He is perfect, according to His nature and not our sinful nature, by walking in His Spirit. We cannot be like Christ and defend what is evil and condemn what is good, like you are doing. Jesus never twisted God's word. The devil did. Jesus defended the will of God and the Word of God (He IS the Word of God), told us to live by it and keep His commandments. We cannot willfully rebel against Jesus and yet claim to follow Him.

"Choosing between Truth and Love?"

False dichotomy.

"does your church include unrepentant LGBT families to fully participate in the life of the church"

Depends on what you are referring to when you say "fully participate".

Also change the LGBT to any other sin and the answer should be the same.

Unrepentant sinners are more than welcome to come to my church and hear the gospel of Jesus Christ and in hearing the gospel, we pray that God will save them, however, they will not be allowed to become members while they remain in sin and refuse to repent, they will not be allowed to take on teaching roles, roles of leadership, or leading ministries. They will not be allowed to partake in the Lord's Supper and they will not be allowed to be baptized while they remain unrepentant.

Nor will they be allowed to promote and celebrate their sin while in the church. Regardless of the sin, whether it be homosexuality, bisexuality, pedophilia, incest or any other sexual sin, or lying, idolatry, adultery, murder, theft or any other sin that God defines. Homosexuality and other sexual sins are not the greatest sin, however, they are indeed sin as defined by God and God commands them to repent. God commands all of us to repent of all and any sin, and trust in Jesus Christ.

FireDragon76 said:

Our ethics are humanistic and secular, because we believe that is in accordance with the incarnation of the Son of God. Jesus made humanity and human needs, not blind obedience to God, the proper center of human ethical reflection.

Click to expand...

Romans 12:1-2 “Therefore, I urge you brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.