Homosexuality the early churches view should be ours

FutureAndAHope · Jan 17, 2021

Please move this if it is inappropriate for this forum.

I would like to contest for the faith.

The basic premise of the World, or the secular society, is the following premise:

Homosexuality is a biological issue, as such a homosexual has no control over their preference, they are born homosexual, as such it is wrong to class it as a sin, or something wrong.

This however is not the truth. It is an opinion of man. God’s word, or the way he describes the sin is entirely different. Any church that accepts the sin of homosexuality has deviated away from God’s word and seeks to please man.

O you who are false to God, do you not see that the friends of this world are not God's friends? Every man desiring to be a friend of this world makes himself a hater of God. - Jas 4:4

So what does God’s word say about homosexuality. I will give a brief description of it here before moving to the bible’s description of it.

The bible basically says that the sin shows it’s presence the most where a person has chosen to remove themselves from the knowledge of God. Where they have chosen to ignore his commands, and call consistently. They have chosen, witchcraft, sexual sin, hatred, unloving attitudes, over God’s call to live with restraint, and true gentleness. As such the worlds view that homosexuality is love, is far removed from the truth, it actually shows a rejection of God’s love.

It is not however a sin that is unpardonable, meaning that a person can leave that life style and receive God. But no man may live in the sin and think they have the forgiveness of God. For God lists it as an abomination.

The civil law of God given by Moses, states:

And if a man has sex relations with a man, the two of them have done a disgusting thing: let them be put to death; their blood will be on them. - Lev 20:13

This shows that God does not want people to be homosexual, any law that promotes homosexuality is against God. One of the primary reason is that God has shown through scripture that homosexuality manifests it’s self in the rejection of God, and his commands. Now the bible says that God is love. That his attributes are:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, a quiet mind, kind acts, well-doing, faith, Gentle behaviour, control over desires: against such there is no law. Gal 5:22-23

A person who has moved into the sin of homosexuality according to the bible has in the past been exposed to God’s love and word, but have chosen to ignore it and rather give into passion, and lust. As such, being a God rejector, and a hater of what is good, should have no part in church ministry.

Because, having the knowledge of God, they did not give glory to God as God, and did not give praise, but their minds were full of foolish things, and their hearts, being without sense, were made dark. Seeming to be wise, they were in fact foolish, And by them the glory of the eternal God was changed and made into the image of man who is not eternal, and of birds and beasts and things which go on the earth. For this reason God gave them up to the evil desires of their hearts, working shame in their bodies with one another: Because by them the true word of God was changed into that which is false, and they gave worship and honour to the thing which is made, and not to him who made it, to whom be blessing for ever. So be it. For this reason God gave them up to evil passions, and their women were changing the natural use into one which is unnatural: And in the same way the men gave up the natural use of the woman and were burning in their desire for one another, men doing shame with men, and getting in their bodies the right reward of their evil-doing. And because they had not the mind to keep God in their knowledge, God gave them up to an evil mind, to do those things which are not right; Being full of all wrongdoing, evil, desire for the goods of others, hate, envy, putting to death, fighting, deceit, cruel ways, evil talk, and false statements about others; Hated by God, full of pride, without respect, full of loud talk, given to evil inventions, not honouring father or mother, Without knowledge, not true to their undertakings, unkind, having no mercy: Who, though they have knowledge of the law of God, that the fate of those who do these things is death, not only go on doing these things themselves, but give approval to those who do them. - Rom 1:21-32

chevyontheriver · Jan 17, 2021

You quoted four selections from the Bible, which is fine. But this is 'traditional theology', which looks to the practice of Christians from the first several centuries of Christian experience. So, do you have any quotes from the first six or so centuries of Christian experience? That would be fitting for posting in this particular part of Christian Forums.

BobRyan · Jan 17, 2021

FutureAndAHope said:
Please move this if it is inappropriate for this forum.

I would like to contest for the faith.

The basic premise of the World, or the secular society, is the following premise:

Homosexuality is a biological issue, as such a homosexual has no control over their preference, they are born homosexual, as such it is wrong to class it as a sin, or something wrong.

Lets forget homosexuality for a minute and talk about your term "sin".

What is it in your view?

are we born as slaves of sin?

Eph 2
And you were dead in your offenses and sins, 2 in which you previously walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all previously lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the rest

Rom 8
5 For those who are in accord with the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are in accord with the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Rom 6
16 Do you not know that the one to whom you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of that same one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

Is the sinful nature a matter of slavery for the unsaved?

Der Alte · Jan 17, 2021

chevyontheriver said:
You quoted four selections from the Bible, which is fine. But this is 'traditional theology', which looks to the practice of Christians from the first several centuries of Christian experience. So, do you have any quotes from the first six or so centuries of Christian experience? That would be fitting for posting in this particular part of Christian Forums.

<>Athenagoras
For those who have set up a market for fornication and established infamous resorts for the young for every kind of vile pleasure, – who do not abstain even from males, males with males committing shocking abominations, outraging all the noblest and comeliest bodies in all sorts of ways, so dishonoring the fair workmanship of God (Plea for Christians 34 [A.D. 177])
<>Clement of Alexandria
The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong and instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites had fallen into uncleanness because of much luxury. They practiced adultery shamelessly and burned with insane love for boys (The Instructor 3:8 [A.D. 193]).
<>Tertullian
So, too, whoever enjoys any other than nuptial intercourse, in whatever place, and in the person of whatever woman, makes himself guilty of adultery and fornication. Accordingly, among us, secret connections as well — connections, that is, not first professed in presence of the Church— run risk of being judged akin to adultery and fornication; nor must we let them, if thereafter woven together by the covering of marriage, elude the charge. But all the other frenzies of passions— impious both toward the bodies and toward the sexes — beyond the laws of nature, we banish not only from the threshold, but from all shelter of the Church, because they are not sins, but monstrosities (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).
<>Origen
But observe here that every great sin is a loss of the talents of the master of the house, and such sins are committed by fornicators, adulterers, abusers of themselves with men, effeminate, idolaters, murderers (Commentary on Matthew 14:10 [A.D. 248]).
While those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, “men with men working that which is unseemly” (Against Celsus 7:49 [A.D. 248]).
<>Cyprian
Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret places – if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight – you would behold things done by immodest persons that no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people imbruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do – men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things that afford no gratification even to those who do them (Letters 1:9 [A.D. 253])./indent]
More at the link.
ECF on Homosexuality

George95 · Jan 17, 2021

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been moved from Traditional Theology to General Theology.

MOD HAT OFF

FutureAndAHope · Jan 18, 2021

BobRyan said:
Lets forget homosexuality for a minute and talk about your term "sin".

What is it in your view?

are we born as slaves of sin?

Eph 2
And you were dead in your offenses and sins, 2 in which you previously walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all previously lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the rest

Rom 8
5 For those who are in accord with the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are in accord with the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Rom 6
16 Do you not know that the one to whom you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of that same one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

Is the sinful nature a matter of slavery for the unsaved?

Sin is a deviation away from God's purposes. It is a breaking of God's law. The natural man deviates or draws towards sin. But when a person is saved, accepts Jesus into their life the Holy Spirit abides in them, and with the cooperation of the receiver, the person is given power over their sin (to a large degree), although they will never be 100% sinless. Jesus said, "pray that you enter not into temptation for the spirit is willing and the flesh weak". A person who prays regularly, spends time with God, will be less likely to sin, for God's abiding power rests on them.

marc b · Jan 18, 2021

I agree. The only thing is I can't agree only the early church believed this. As far as I know most churches still stand on it. Even those who went along with it, there is still the church within the church - the real body of believers inside lukewarm churches that holds to it. The lying media has made it look like a lot of churches has accepted this to make it look more acceptable.

But this faddish push to accept LGBTQx seem to have popped up only in the last 2 decade in the guise of Christian love. But is it really love if we are not showing them the truth, that they are living in sin? When dealing with a drug addict do we say sure it's all good, you are right nothing is wrong with you, here take more drugs and I laud you for standing up for your rights?

The way I see it, sexual sin like all sin is rooted from human perversion. Perversion of thought, mind, speech, indulgence, relationships, even our use of earth. As a straight person we pervert sex if we engage with it outside Gods commands. Homosexual sin is just another sexual perversion. It should not be pampered but rejected and plainly called sin like all other sins.

pescador · Jan 18, 2021

marc b said:
I agree. The only thing is I can't agree only the early church believed this. As far as I know most churches still stand on it. Even those who went along with it, there is still the church within the church - the real body of believers inside lukewarm churches that holds to it. The lying media has made it look like a lot of churches has accepted this to make it look more acceptable.

But this faddish push to accept LGBTQx seem to have popped up only in the last 2 decade in the guise of Christian love. But is it really love if we are not showing them the truth, that they are living in sin? When dealing with a drug addict do we say sure it's all good, you are right nothing is wrong with you, here take more drugs and I laud you for standing up for your rights?

The way I see it, sexual sin like all sin is rooted from human perversion. Perversion of thought, mind, speech, indulgence, relationships, even our use of earth. As a straight person we pervert sex if we engage with it outside Gods commands. Homosexual sin is just another sexual perversion. It should not be pampered but rejected and plainly called sin like all other sins.

So, are we not supposed to love sinners? Homosexuality, according to you, is a sin, therefore we are not to love those who are homosexuals. That is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are instructed in both covenants to love our neighbor as ourselves. Homosexuals are our neighbors.

hedrick · Jan 18, 2021

FutureAndAHope said:
I would like to contest for the faith.

The basic premise of the World, or the secular society, is the following premise:

Homosexuality is a biological issue, as such a homosexual has no control over their preference, they are born homosexual, as such it is wrong to class it as a sin, or something wrong.

This however is not the truth. It is an opinion of man. God’s word, or the way he describes the sin is entirely different. Any church that accepts the sin of homosexuality has deviated away from God’s word and seeks to please man.

Ugh. This is the usual conservative conspiracy theory. Astronomy, social science, and history are all part of The World's opposition to Christianity. No thanks. I accept the traditional Christian concept of two books. We know the world through two books: the Bible and nature. All truth is God's truth.

The OT passages are part of a concept of Law based on purity. No mixing of fabrics, no mixing of things in a field, only animals that meet the proper definition of their class. While Jesus accepted the Law in principle, he rejected this concept of it, as did many of the prophets. Indeed this was one of his biggest problems with the Pharisees. They were focused on maintaining purity in this sense.

Paul, as is obvious from the passage you quote, was speaking of Roman sexuality, which at least in certain upper-class communities, seems actually to have been pretty bad. Sated with normal sex, they went on to the same sex. If you equate that with Christian gays, there's really nothing I can say. (That assumes that Rom 1 even expresses Paul's views. I think the context makes it clear that he's actually quoting the opposing position so he can reject it in Rom 2.)

marc b · Jan 18, 2021

pescador said:
So, are we not supposed to love sinners? Homosexuality, according to you, is a sin, therefore we are not to love those who are homosexuals. That is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are instructed in both covenants to love our neighbor as ourselves. Homosexuals are our neighbors.

Nowhere in my post did i say otherwise. In fact when I replied I almost wrote that very phrase, but removed it to keep the thought concise. I remember as far back in the early 80's during my University days when I just started to follow Jesus I was asked to lead a morning devotional during our retreat, and I used exactly the same words. Like I said, this is as old as I can remember.

Care to explain how you thought otherwise from my post?

grasping the after wind · Jan 18, 2021

pescador said:
So, are we not supposed to love sinners? Homosexuality, according to you, is a sin, therefore we are not to love those who are homosexuals. That is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are instructed in both covenants to love our neighbor as ourselves. Homosexuals are our neighbors.

Where did you get this particular "So your saying" from? Quote the specific phrase, sentence or words where marc b said anything like we are not supposed to love sinners. Everyone , including those that are sexually attracted to people of the same sex and those that find same sex relationships to be biblically inappropriate , is our neighbor. We tell our neighbor the truth if we love them. If one believes that a neighbor is engaging in conduct that will harm that neighbor, it is one's loving responsibility to warn that neighbor of the danger. If a Christian is convinced that God does not approve of same sex relationships, then encouraging them would be unloving not loving. If a Christian is convinced that God approves of same sex relationships, then condemning them would be unloving. There is no objective standard to consult in every area of human action. The exact same action that might be loving for one person to do could be an act of selfishness for another. For example, Let us say I believed that anyone that drank alcohol in any amount was committing a grievous sin. In that case the loving thing to do would be to council people not to drink even a drop of alcohol. However, to appear loving and to avoid an argument I could tell an alcoholic looking for validation for continuing to deny his addiction that alcohol in moderation was just fine and not mention that the alcoholic did not even stop at moderation.

atpollard · Jan 18, 2021

pescador said:
So, are we not supposed to love sinners? Homosexuality, according to you, is a sin, therefore we are not to love those who are homosexuals. That is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are instructed in both covenants to love our neighbor as ourselves. Homosexuals are our neighbors.

The act is an "abomination" to the LORD, and "the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." [Gal 5:19-21 NASB]

So how does one "love" your neighbor living according to the flesh (since it is no less true for the man addicted to inappropriate contentography, or the alcoholic or with an uncontrolled temper than the homosexual)?
Is it "love" to lie to them and tell them that "your sin is OK, don't worry about it" when we know that 'those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God'?
Is it "love" to warn them of the truth?

Therein lies the need for God's wisdom and grace: [Gal 6:1 NIV] "Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted."

pescador · Jan 18, 2021

grasping the after wind said:
Where did you get this particular "So your saying" from? Quote the specific phrase, sentence or words where marc b said anything like we are not supposed to love sinners. Everyone , including those that are sexually attracted to people of the same sex and those that find same sex relationships to be biblically inappropriate , is our neighbor. We tell our neighbor the truth if we love them. If one believes that a neighbor is engaging in conduct that will harm that neighbor, it is one's loving responsibility to warn that neighbor of the danger. If a Christian is convinced that God does not approve of same sex relationships, then encouraging them would be unloving not loving. If a Christian is convinced that God approves of same sex relationships, then condemning them would be unloving. There is no objective standard to consult in every area of human action. The exact same action that might be loving for one person to do could be an act of selfishness for another. For example, Let us say I believed that anyone that drank alcohol in any amount was committing a grievous sin. In that case the loving thing to do would be to council people not to drink even a drop of alcohol. However, to appear loving and to avoid an argument I could tell an alcoholic looking for validation for continuing to deny his addiction that alcohol in moderation was just fine and not mention that the alcoholic did not even stop at moderation.

You wrote, "But this faddish push to accept LGBTQx seem to have popped up only in the last 2 decade in the guise of Christian love. But is it really love if we are not showing them the truth, that they are living in sin?"

This is clearly your position. Faddish push? Is this love: showing them the truth: "that they are living in sin and therefore deserve our judgement". That doesn't sound like love to me. It sound Pharisaic, and Jesus warned them (and therefore us) about judging others.

grasping the after wind · Jan 18, 2021

pescador said:
You wrote, "But this faddish push to accept LGBTQx seem to have popped up only in the last 2 decade in the guise of Christian love. But is it really love if we are not showing them the truth, that they are living in sin?"

This is clearly your position. Faddish push? Is this love: showing them the truth: "that they are living in sin and therefore deserve our judgement". That doesn't sound like love to me. It sound Pharisaic, and Jesus warned them (and therefore us) about judging others.

The things you attribute to me were all written by someone else but I will address it anyway.

First you cannot put quotes around something no one said. Who are you quoting that said or wrote "... and therefore deserve our judgement."

pescador said:
"that they are living in sin and therefore deserve our judgement".

If no one said what you purported to quote, and I see no evidence that anyone did, then displaying it as if someone actually said that is inappropriate. So your premise is flawed from the start. How can someone be sounding Pharisaic by not actually saying the Pharisaic sounding words you and not they put in their mouth? This is what happens when one decides that one is extremely adept at reading minds and then insists that one's mind reading ability is a superior method of understanding the position of another person than what that person actually says. The construction of an extremely weak and unattractive strawman that bears no relation to the actual argument being put forward.

pescador · Jan 18, 2021

grasping the after wind said:
The things you attribute to me were all written by someone else but I will address it anyway.

First you cannot put quotes around something no one said. Who are you quoting that said or wrote "... and therefore deserve our judgement."

If no one said what you purported to quote, and I see no evidence that anyone did, then displaying it as if someone actually said that is inappropriate. So your premise is flawed from the start. How can someone be sounding Pharisaic by not actually saying the Pharisaic sounding words you and not they put in their mouth? This is what happens when one decides that one is extremely adept at reading minds and then insists that one's mind reading ability is a superior method of understanding the position of another person than what that person actually says. The construction of an extremely weak and unattractive strawman that bears no relation to the actual argument being put forward.

If you intended this to be funny, it's not. I and others know what you wrote and what I wrote in reply.

Your construction of an extremely weak and unattractive strawman that bears no relation to the actual argument.

BobRyan · Jan 18, 2021

FutureAndAHope said:
Sin is a deviation away from God's purposes. It is a breaking of God's law.

Agreed.

"sin is transgression of the law" 1 John 3:4

Where that law includes the one where "honor your father and mother" is the "first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:1-2

FutureAndAHope said:
S
The natural man deviates or draws towards sin. But when a person is saved, accepts Jesus into their life the Holy Spirit abides in them, and with the cooperation of the receiver, the person is given power over their sin

Agreed. But in the texts already given here #3 we see that slavery to sin is the initial condition not merely of 'some' -- but of all. That is the state of mankind before accepting the Gospel. We inherit it from birth.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jan 18, 2021

Homosexuality as it is celebrated by the liberal left today I would argue didn't exist in the early Church. Marriage is exclusively spoken of as commitment between a man and a woman and thus the regulations within marriage are concerned only with that. Paul when he speaks of married couple presumes a man and a woman, he presumes children are the natural product of such a relationship. He presumes a bride and groom and what the proper boundaries are between them. He doesn't pause to consider, like the liberal would, those sexual minorities in his Church.

The idea that the Church has been fundamentally wrong about this issue since it's inception would indicate a grave injustice and should make any liberal question the legitimacy of any form of Christianity which has been handed down to them. Especially considering Homosexuality was not justified on grounds of Christianity in our times, but on grounds of the sexual revolution and the consent principle. Liberal Christians have no real objection to sex outside of marriage. Why not? It doesn't hurt anyone.

Christian ethics regarding sex doesn't merely rely on the Idea of doing no harm. It is concerned with sobriety, restraint and not giving into wanton passion.

grasping the after wind · Jan 18, 2021

pescador said:
If you intended this to be funny, it's not. I and others know what you wrote and what I wrote in reply.

Your construction of an extremely weak and unattractive strawman that bears no relation to the actual argument.

Why would you think there was any attempt at humor in what I wrote? You attributed things to me that were written by marc b and when you used quotation marks to quote a phrase of his you included words that he did not write. When someone tells you that you are mistaken about something it would be wiser to check to see if you made a mistake rather than to attack the person that informed you of the mistake.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jan 18, 2021

pescador said:
This is clearly your position. Faddish push? Is this love: showing them the truth: "that they are living in sin and therefore deserve our judgement". That doesn't sound like love to me. It sound Pharisaic, and Jesus warned them (and therefore us) about judging others.

Does having rules or standards automatically mean we become Pharisees? The early Church had pretty strict standards regarding sexual relations and if they were violated you could be thrown out. Does Paul embody this principle of Phariseeism when he kicked a man out of the Corinthian Church for sleeping with his mother in law? Was he being unfair, a violator of sexual liberty?

Or what about the laws that existed within second century/third century Churches regarding the separation of virgins consecrated to God and men? Was this an undue burden on them? Was St Cyprian too harsh in punishing the violation of this rule? Were these unreasonable? Or did they have behind them the simple idea that if you put adult men and women together in the same sleeping quarters base human nature might just lead to temptation?

I think you should read some history and be horrified at the expectations and standards that early Christians had of each other.

marc b · Jan 18, 2021

pescador said:
You wrote, "But this faddish push to accept LGBTQx seem to have popped up only in the last 2 decade in the guise of Christian love. But is it really love if we are not showing them the truth, that they are living in sin?"

This is clearly your position. Faddish push? Is this love: showing them the truth: "that they are living in sin and therefore deserve our judgement". That doesn't sound like love to me. It sound Pharisaic, and Jesus warned them (and therefore us) about judging others.

Where did I say "they deserve judgement"? You're putting words into my mouth. And your attributing my post to @grasping the after wind. Not that he needs help, he's doing a pretty fine job

Homosexuality the early churches view should be ours

Just me

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

CF Tech Master

Just me

Active Member

Wise old man

Senior Veteran

Active Member

That's grasping after the wind

Well-Known Member

Wise old man

That's grasping after the wind

Wise old man

Junior Member

Dissident

That's grasping after the wind

Dissident

Active Member

Similar threads