False teachers

[Leevo]

All scripture? not just the Old & New Testaments of the Bible, but all other scripture too?

All scripture of the Bible.

 

[Leevo]

That´s the remarkable part about "That´s what the bible clearly says": You have trouble explaining it to me, and it takes a long article with questionable and debatable interpretations to make it say what it "clearly says".

I have explained clearly that the Bible clearly teaches homosexuality is wrong, all you need to do is read the verses.

 

[Leevo]

If the churches can abolish all the laws of Moses, which includes the promise of Messiah, then how can the churches be certain of anything? We do very poorly to follow God's commandments, so maybe this is the opportunity God has given us to reconsider the direction in which the churches are going with respect to the Sabbath, dietary laws, mixing fabrics, etc.

Christ fulfilled the Law, therefore we no longer have to follow the ceremonial law. Stoning, for example or not working on the Sabbath. The moral part of the law, which are the 10 Commandments etc, have not gone anywhere, we just now no longer have to attempt to atone for them ourselves so long as we place our faith in Christ and repent.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I thought Christians were supposed to obey the law of the land. That what these preachers seemed to be doing.

 

[Leevo]

It's a fairly common fallacy named after a famous example of its use:

Google is your friend if you're curious about such things... see NTS Fallacy.

I can see the similarities between this and the NTS Fallacy. I would agree with the statement that we have people that teach contrary to scripture in the Christian faith. The Bible says, wolf in sheep clothing...

 

[Leevo]

I thought Christians were supposed to obey the law of the land. That what these preachers seemed to be doing.

We obey the law of the land. These pastors are choosing optionally to perform these marriages. We have the right to refuse to perform a marriage based on our beliefs. It would be different, and outrageous, if the government was forcing pastors to perform them.

 

[quatona]

I have explained clearly that the Bible clearly teaches homosexuality is wrong, all you need to do is read the verses.

If all I had to do is read the verses, you wouldn´t have had to explain your interpretation.

 

[Leevo]

If all I had to do is read the verses, you wouldn´t have had to explain your interpretation.

I fail to see where your interpretation could be different. Lets look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 "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, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

It is clear as day right there. Homosexuals without repentance cannot enter the kingdom of God, just like the rest of the sins listed there. However, the word homosexuality is there and it is clear cut. Notice that they placed their trust in Jesus and were able to be saved there though. They were required to repent and turn from their sins though.

How about Romans 1:26-28? "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done."

I can see where maybe someone could twist this into something else. However, it is pretty clear what Paul means to say here.

I fail to see your reasoning that it isn't clear. Care to explain?

I would also encourage you to read Romans 7, which speaks on the release from the Law. However, we are still cannot sin as we please.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

All scripture of the Bible.

But he doesn't actually mention the Bible, just 'All scripture" or "Every scripture" or "Everything in the Scriptures", depending on the translation; and he wouldn't have known about the Bible that his own epistle would be in when he said it.

Also, the Bible was assembled from a larger set of books; even now there are different books in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant canons (and others); who has/had the authority to say which are inspired of God and which are not, and which version of the Bible is the right one?

 

[Leevo]

But he doesn't actually mention the Bible, just 'All scripture" or "Every scripture" or "Everything in the Scriptures", depending on the translation; and he wouldn't have known about the Bible that his own epistle would be in when he said it.

Also, the Bible was assembled from a larger set of books; even now there are different books in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant canons (and others); who has/had the authority to say which are inspired of God and which are not, and which version of the Bible is the right one?

Paul did not know of the Bible yet, you are correct. Paul was definitely referring to the Old Testament scriptures but also his own writings. In verse 10 of 2 Timothy Chapter 3 he says "You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, (11) at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me."

Then, in verse 14 he goes on to say "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it (15) from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Here he references not only what he has taught them but also the Old Testament. Which shows that Paul knew and believed that his writings were inspired.

And of course verse 16 says "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

As Christians the majority of us believe that the Bible and all of the writings in it, including Paul's letters are inspired by God. The Holy Spirit was guiding Paul when he wrote this and every other word he wrote.

Now, as for which canon is correct, I personally use the Protestant canon. They all, according to my knowledge, use the same New Testament, nothing differs among all 3 New Testaments. The Old Testament, is debated. However, the Protestants use the Hebrew canon that was in use at the time of Christ. However, I do not disregard the Catholic and Orthodox canons I just think that the Apocrypha is still open for debate. We are in agreement about the first 39 books of the Old Testament though. Also known as the Hebrew canon.

 

[Belk]

I fail to see where your interpretation could be different. Lets look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 "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, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

It is clear as day right there. Homosexuals without repentance cannot enter the kingdom of God, just like the rest of the sins listed there. However, the word homosexuality is there and it is clear cut. Notice that they placed their trust in Jesus and were able to be saved there though. They were required to repent and turn from their sins though.

How about Romans 1:26-28? "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done."

I can see where maybe someone could twist this into something else. However, it is pretty clear what Paul means to say here.

I fail to see your reasoning that it isn't clear. Care to explain?

I would also encourage you to read Romans 7, which speaks on the release from the Law. However, we are still cannot sin as we please.

It would be helpful if you could tell us what biblical translation you are using. They are often quite different so it would help if we are discussing apples to apples. Also, discussing homosexuality will get this thread shut down quick. Just FYI.

 

[Belk]

That is part of the Law, so no.

Can you point to the section of the bible that tells you how to separate a "Law" from a "Sin" because I don't think it is quite that easy.

 

[Leevo]

It would be helpful if you could tell us what biblical translation you are using. They are often quite different so it would help if we are discussing apples to apples. Also, discussing homosexuality will get this thread shut down quick. Just FYI.

I use a multitude of versions. NIV, NLT, ESV. Those are usually the ones I cite from. The intent of this thread is not about homosexuality itself, it is about the endorsement of it from pastors.

 

[Leevo]

Can you point to the section of the bible that tells you how to separate a "Law" from a "Sin" because I don't think it is quite that easy.

Romans Chapter 7 discusses releasing us from the Law and sin

 

[ken777]

The question I still have is WHY!!!

Why are some things from the OT okay but others not? If the new testament supercedes the OT then why should anything in the OT be considered part of Christianity. For that part, why do we even have an OT?

Christianity today is far different than it was 500 years ago. So does that mean we are all about bunch of heathens and false teachers? Or does it mean that Christianity has evolved? And if Christianity can evolve, then I'd like to think that it has evolved to incorporate homosexuals.

I know, I know, that is basically blasphemous. However, I have to wonder why that cannot be the case.

Science is discovering that homosexuality is NOT a choice, that there is a nature component to it.

For the sake of argument, lets say that homosexual dispositions are genetic and that people are born that way. I simply can't imagine a god that would do that and then make it impossible for said person to live a happy and fulfilling life. Why can't a homosexual love god, love their partner, wish to do right by God and marry his or her partner?

I've read about the struggles of some homosexuals. They were born into strict Christian and/or Conservative homes. All their lives they sincerely tried to be heterosexual, even in many cases getting married, getting therapy, torturing themselves daily struggling against their natures. And then after years, decades even of trying to live a lie they find they can't. Some even go so far as to commit suicide.

My heart truly goes out to those individuals. Can you imagine how lonely and horrible those people have to feel. To feel that not only are they evil and sinful but that god doesn't love them. I honestly can't reconcile that with how I feel about God. Why would god purposefully make a person that is condemned to hell?

I understand why innocent people die, earthquakes, cancer, etc. Mathematically, the universe has to be random. I get that. However, creating an individual who is condemned to hell no matter what to me is something that I can't picture a loving and caring God ever doing.

If you honestly accept god into your heart, and you try to live a righteous life, and you are a homosexual, why couldn't you marry? Why couldn't you enter a covenant with your partner and god and try to do right by the spirit of the bible?

I know I just set myself up for foaming at the mouth Christians to rip that apart... But I have to say, to me, the above just feels right. Speaking of which, lets say God changed his mind about this whole topic and has decided to let gays marry. How would Christianity evolve to incorporate this change? Would we need a tablet to fall out of the sky in order for us to accept the change? Or would pastors and preachers the world over slowly have a change of heart?

The parts of the OT not carried over in to the NT have important symbolic significance because they foreshadow the coming of Jesus Christ. This is most clearly demonstrated in the sacrifices of the OT.

He [Jesus] said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” (Luke 24:44)​

.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I think it is funny when someone says the Sabbath doesn’t apply anymore, just the Ten Commandments when the Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments.

 

[Smidlee]

I think it is funny when someone says the Sabbath doesn’t apply anymore, just the Ten Commandments when the Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments.

I think it still apply to the Jews but never carried over to the Gentile church as it dealt more with the temple. No doubt apostles continue to visit the temple and worship God on the Sabbath as well kept their diet.

 

[Belk]

I use a multitude of versions. NIV, NLT, ESV. Those are usually the ones I cite from. The intent of this thread is not about homosexuality itself, it is about the endorsement of it from pastors.

Which will get it shut down. If I might suggest? You should start a thread like this in the Christian only section. It would seem much more relevant there and then us heathens would not comment on it.

 

[Leevo]

Which will get it shut down. If I might suggest? You should start a thread like this in the Christian only section. It would seem much more relevant there and then us heathens would not comment on it.

Ha! I might just do that, but this thread has been open for 3 days, I don't know why it hasn't been shut down already if it was breaking the rules.

 

[Mister_Al]

For arguments sake let's all try to understand that the Law of Moses was a covenant between God and Israel and not between God and the world. This means that the gentiles were never under the Law and were never subject to obeying it in order to be righteous before God. Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Law by providing us with a means to be righteous before God through Him without obeying the Law. However, we should still reference the Law to better understand how God feels about certain things we encounter in our lives in order to know if they are sinful or not. Jesus didn't take away sin and the punishment for sinning, He took away the condemnation of sin and because of what He did we are able to be forgiven if we confess our sin to God and turn away from it.

Are we under the Law? No, and never were. Should we understand the Law to understand how God views sin? Absolutely.

Blessings,

Alan