Dealing with Liberal Christians

[PeaceByJesus]

Sometimes the Scriptural bases for our viewpoints in liberal churches are drawn out and don't make for good bullet points.

Because by nature liberalism avoids absolutes and prefers ambiguity so that its adherents can escape actual conviction and guilt.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Please remember that CF has rules against the kind of posting you describe, except in a couple of forums, and even those have to be done with care. Many other sites have similar rules. Because of CF rules, not many liberals find it worth being active here. The same is true of other sites.

To me that is like the MSM saying we see no bias here. My experience is that most posters are liberal, aside from evangelicals or TradCats.

Here's my summary of why many Christians don't think homosexuality and living as a transgender are sins: liberal approaches to homosexuality and transgender. Note that it's in the liberal forum, which is just about the only place such a posting would be legal.

Well with the multiplicity of forums with their specific rules and sub forums with specific statement of purpose can be confusing, and the criteria for official censor is sufficiently ambiguous so as to see hours of labor suddenly and even totally nuked, which hardly encourages more.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I read or heard somewhere recently that Satan is no longer content with possessing one person at a time and is going for an entire generation in one go atm. I cant argue with that.

One a related issue, does anyone else think the fires in California could be God's judgement on there stance on this sort of thing?

Of course they could be, and i believe they certainly are warranted in this state more than most. However, "the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" (1 Peter 4:17)

He cried also in mine ears with a loud voice, saying, Cause them that have charge over the city to draw near, even every man with his destroying weapon in his hand. And, behold, six men came from the way of the higher gate, which lieth toward the north, and every man a slaughter weapon in his hand; and one man among them was clothed with linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side: and they went in, and stood beside the brasen altar. And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house.

And he called to the man clothed with linen, which had the writer's inkhorn by his side; And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house. And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city. (Ezekiel 9:1-7)

 

[Halbhh]

I'm thinking about scripture such as this: Homosexuality in the New Testament - Wikipedia

I've read these before carefully, comparing with Lev 18:22, but do you see a difference? I ask because they do not visibly contradict Leviticus 18:22 in any way I noticed. If you read them as not the same as Lev 18:22, that would be significant, and important to carefully check.

I interpret a wording such as "men who have sex with men" to mean just exactly what it sounds like it says -- intercourse sodomy.

But if you think it instead means some other thing, what do you think it means instead?

 

[Halbhh]

You should keep in focus that the woman caught in adultery, "ye who have not sinned cast the first stone" story, was admonished by Christ after everyone had left with, "Go and sin no more." There is forgiveness but in the wake of that Christ demands that one change their life and cease that sin.

That's exactly right. We are to confess our sins, sincerely, thus repentantly/truly inside our thoughts/hearts, to our Father in Heaven (a pastor can aid those needing help to do this sincerely and fully). When we do confess our sins "he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

All of us will need to confess sins at times, in life. A true confession done in faith and repentance will cause real change in us.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Where are all the threads about how to talk to our fellow Christians about divorce, greed, not taking care of widows and orphans, casual heterosexual relationships, etc?

Shouldn't we straight people be more concerned about straight people sins?

The reason is because the nature of the issues you mention are not being promoted, versus what liberals promote and defend. Do you realize how much has been even written trying to negate the Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations and to even assert sanction for them? If you stand on a golf course with your club raised up to Heaven during a T-storm, do not complain that you are getting struck and not those in the club house.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Why do you get angry about these things? Abortion is evil, true, but that does NOT mean that we are supposed to be merciless and hard to the woman who has had an abortion. As far as our LGBT brothers, are we not supposed to love our neighbor? Even if our neighbor does belong to a group hated by your group?
Mercy

"LGBT brothers?" One who sanctions this is not a brother in Christ, while love for neighbor comes after love for God, by which what love for neighbor means is defined. And i can hardly claim to love my neighbor as myself if i do not seek to save them from a belief or practice that will send them to an eternal Hell and likely to an early grave unless they come to the Lord Jesus in repentant faith.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Good question. Can you link me to the threads where Christians argue in favor of sanctifying those sins?

As far as I have observed not one Christian (save one who advocated pre marital sex and I debated) on CF or any other site I visit advocated what you listed were not sins.

That thread must be the one last July in which it was indeed argued that consensual fornication btwn Christians was not forbidden, since (as false argued) this manner of fornication is only condemned in the context of idolatry.

Which heretical "turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." (Jude 4) saw extensive reproof here by the grace of God, which you affirmed.

Note to all: Never underestimate what may fly as "Christian" on CF, even since mere assent to the Nicene creed does not require one to hold Scripture as being the only wholly inspired, infallible, substantive supreme standard for faith and morals, or for one to have been born again, or believe consistent with basic Biblical morality (thus "liberal Christian" is under "Christian").

 

[Almost there]

I've read these before carefully, comparing with Lev 18:22, but do you see a difference? I ask because they do not visibly contradict Leviticus 18:22 in any way I noticed. If you read them as not the same as Lev 18:22, that would be significant, and important to carefully check.

I interpret a wording such as "men who have sex with men" to mean just exactly what it sounds like it says -- intercourse sodomy.

But if you think it instead means some other thing, what do you think it means instead?

Well, I think we are in agreement. I think. I don't really know what you are getting at beyond the plain wording in all the scripture mentioned.

 

[Halbhh]

Well, I think we are in agreement. I think. I don't really know what you are getting at beyond the plain wording in all the scripture mentioned.

That intercourse sodomy is the sin, even if done in a male/female traditional marriage also (Romans 1:26), and therefore so-called "gay marriage" is not the sin said in the Bible, and is therefore not in itself a sin, but instead only the action of intercourse sodomy or other precise sexual sins such as adultery, all listed in Lev 18 exactly.

When preachers preach against "gay marriage" they are not following scripture.

.

 

[Almost there]

That intercourse sodomy is the sin, even if done in a male/female traditional marriage also (Romans 1:26), and therefore so-called "gay marriage" is not the sin said in the Bible, and is therefore not in itself a sin, but instead only the action of intercourse sodomy or other precise sexual sins such as adultery, all listed in Lev 18 exactly.

Well, it certainly grosses me out.

When preachers preach against "gay marriage" they are not following scripture.

"gay marriage" is just a label for a couple of homosexuals pretending to be like a married man and wife. I don't respect it as a real thing. In fact, when the SCOTUS ruled on homosexual marriage, all they were really doing was using the SCOTUS to force a change in the meaning of a word. It's comical when you think about it. Then it's not funny at all. It's like watching Rome in its final, crazy days.

 

[FireDragon76]

Because by nature liberalism avoids absolutes and prefers ambiguity so that its adherents can escape actual conviction and guilt.

I think that's merely polemical and not helpful to having a genuine discussion.

 

[riesie]

Thanks for your replies. But what happens is that I get treated like I said something really mean and rude, and people tell me how bigoted and hateful I am. Then I feel bad and question, am I wrong? Am I NOT being godly? What if I am wrong, and God would not approve of me thinking this way? I get accused of being crazy and then wonder if I am indeed wrong. What if I am really being hateful?

Besides the point you are addressing for which I want to thank you I sense a lot of the political correctness police in the reactions you get from people. And this phenomena makes out double as hard to deal with this issue in the first place. I think you are right in the things you worry about and I agree that Jesus foretold is that there will be a time that we will be hated. Remember that we can tolerate them and be respectful to them because tolerance is only for the ones we disagree with. And even this definition of tolerance has been altered by the pc police into something that's false. Take care you and may God bless you!

 

[GirdYourLoins]

Thanks for your replies. But what happens is that I get treated like I said something really mean and rude, and people tell me how bigoted and hateful I am. Then I feel bad and question, am I wrong? Am I NOT being godly? What if I am wrong, and God would not approve of me thinking this way? I get accused of being crazy and then wonder if I am indeed wrong. What if I am really being hateful?

What I do is tell people that I dont expect non-Christians to live by Christian standards and that I see gay relationships as the same as heterosexual relationships outside of marriage, they are outside of Gods plan for us and therefore sinful. It does not matter what sin people commit as no one is perfect, not even one. All need Jesus as their personal Saviour.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

if you throw out every sinner in a church I'm afraid churches would be very empty indeed.

Indeed, which is why the church which the Lord promised to overcome the gates of Hell is not one particular organic church or groups of such (nor necessarily opposed to them), but is the Lord's body, the one true church to which He is married, which uniquely only always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.

However, your objection is a logical fallacy as a response to the argument for disfellowshipping of heretics, (Titus 3:2) and to "them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned," (Romans 16:17) and the putting away of such who were called a brother if they be a fornicator, extortioner etc. (1 Corinthians 5:11).

 

[Gwen-is-new!]

Thanks for your replies. But what happens is that I get treated like I said something really mean and rude, and people tell me how bigoted and hateful I am. Then I feel bad and question, am I wrong? Am I NOT being godly? What if I am wrong, and God would not approve of me thinking this way? I get accused of being crazy and then wonder if I am indeed wrong. What if I am really being hateful?

The enemy is trying to get you to question God the same way he did to Adam and Eve in the garden. The devil has no new tricks... don't converse with him.

 

[The Times]

How a Christian associates and deals eith the world will effect their relationship with Jesus, because Jesus said so.......

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. (John 15:19)

25For whoever wants to save their lifef will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? (Matthew 16)

Be you forever separated from the Tares!

 

[PeaceByJesus]

That intercourse sodomy is the sin, even if done in a male/female traditional marriage also (Romans 1:26), and therefore so-called "gay marriage" is not the sin said in the Bible, and is therefore not in itself a sin, but instead only the action of intercourse sodomy or other precise sexual sins such as adultery, all listed in Lev 18 exactly.

When preachers preach against "gay marriage" they are not following scripture..

That is absurd. God made man and women distinctively different yet uniquely compatible and complementary, and only joined them together in marriage - as the Lord Jesus Himself specified - and only condemned homosexual relations wherever they are manifestly dealt with.

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)

If God only joined opposite genders in marriage, and which is the only option to avoid uncleanness and fornication, (1 Corinthians 7:2; Hebrews 13:4) then it leaves all other sexual relationships to be sin/fornication, whether it be men with monkeys or other males, or women with weasels or other women.

Was that so hard?

As for Leviticus 18:22:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

The "lie as with" here is not referring to an option relative to the specific logistics involved in sexual transmission, but as is contextually the case with other injunctions against illicit sexual unions, the subject is simply that of who one cannot lay/have sexual union with, while "as with womankind" provides for a distinction btwn simply men sharing a bed and that of laying with such as with females.

Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.
(Leviticus 18:20)

Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. (Leviticus 18:23)

I have seen some desperate attempts to negate the Scriptural prohibition against homosexual union, but this is a new, if also spurious, one.

 

[hedrick]

OK, how does Puritanism relate to the Reformed faith? It is my understanding that Puritans required evidence of the experience of regeneration before they allowed people to be members of their churches. I understand with Presbyterians, baptism makes you a member of a church.

How do you understand the relationship between Puritans and the Reformed?

Puritans were Reformed. My understanding is that the basic Reformed idea is to look for evidence of a Christian life, not specifically a conversion experience. However the Puritans, at least in the US, did seem to look for a narrative of a conversion experience. This was a problem because citizenship required church membership, and many of the children didn't meet the test. In the end they had to separate those.

Current Reformed tend to see demands for a conversion experience as "decision theology," something that is not considered a good thing in either conservative or liberal Reformed thought. Here's R C Sproul's take on how to get assurance: Fear Not by R.C. Sproul. I'd be closer to the Lutherans on this question. I think basing our assurance on an examination of ourselves is liable to cause trouble. The original idea was that election was supposed to encourage us to be confident in God and his promises.

Everyone who is baptized is a member in one sense. There's a roll of baptized people, all of whom are entitled to pastoral care. However to vote in elections and serve as an officer, you have to "join the church." That involves taking membership vows. Otherwise you'd have 5 year olds voting in elections, which doesn't make sense. There's a roll of people who have joined, that is used for business meetings and nomination of officers. Joining the church has morphed in recent years to something referred to as confirmation, though it's not confirmation in quite the Catholic sense.

In principle, in all Presbyterian churches, the Session examines candidates. Most PCUSA churches ask new members to go through a class, and a pastor would raise concerns in unusual cases based on what he sees in that class, but generally people who go through the class can join, partly because it's hard to see why someone would present themselves for membership if they didn't agree with our vision of Christianity. We ask youth who are joining for statements describing their faith, but I haven't heard one that was unacceptable. That's partly a statement about our youth.

In more conservative churches, examination is more stringent, with candidates being asked whether they really accept the Westminster Confession. I don't have personal experience with their examinations, but I would think they'd expect someone who lives as a Christian, but I very much doubt that the PCA looks for a conversion experience.

Of course the PCUSA accepts members by letter of transfer. In that case we mostly accept the sending church's statement that they are in good standing, though most churches still require new membership training for transfers, and Session still has to approve them.. We'll accept transfers from any mainstream denomination, though not all denominations will issue letters of transfer. (The conservative churches also accept transfers, but only from churches with compatible standards.)

 

[FireDragon76]

Thank you, Hedrick. That helps to clarify things.

Lutherans look for assurance in the sacraments. That is one reason our theology is based on sacramental realism, and why for a long time we have had so many differences with you all over this issue (whereas Reformed seem to be more congenial to Lutherans than vice versa). We are encouraged to do good works but we don't look for our assurance there.

Of course we (ELCA and PC-USA) have had some agreements on this issue (Marburg Revisited) but honestly neither I nor my pastor completely understands the agreement. But I think that could be a whole discussion in itself, and I'd have to do more research because I am not completely familiar with the document's conclusions.