Scottish Church Gay Marriage - How do Conservatives React to constantly losing ground?

[FireDragon76]

So Lutheranism is about staying in your sins with no need to change?

No, at least I would not frame it in those terms. Lutheranism is Gospel-centered, which means we preach the forgiveness of sins and eternal life to all who believe. We do preach the Law of God, but the primary purpose of the Law is to show us the need for a Savior, who atoned for the sins of the whole world in his sacrificial and vicarious death.

This gift of salvation is completely free to anyone who believes, without condition. It is not conditioned on our works or our obedience. I love Lutheranism because it is the only Church where the Gospel is preached with no if's, and's or but's.

So I do not need to be a light on the hill, I can be just like the un-Godly and the unsaved.

The motivation for Lutherans ought to be gratitude, not legal obligation. But even gratitude is not a legal obligation! (it's an invitation).

No requirement for Godly living nor ceasing any immoral living.

We ought to live good lives that benefit our neighbor, that is how we honor God. "Godly living", as in pietistic terms of a self-styled, self-righteous spirituality, is not emphasized.

Why aren't we all Lutherans??

Because grace is a scandal to this world. People want to sell you religion and its heavy burdens, instead of proclaim the purity of the Gospel of Grace. That's how they get their hooks into you.

 

[FireDragon76]

Question
Why was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed because of inhospitality? After all, they just wanted to know the visitors, right? (Gen. 19:5, KJV)

It's a story about rape. It's in no way comparable to two men living in a loving, lifelong covenanted relationship. [Staff edit].

 

[redleghunter]

It's unclear what you mean by condoning sin. I'm not OK with throwing gay people out of the Church. Demanding "proper" repentance is not really the Lutheran way, since none of us can be properly repentant. We are justified by faith alone, not faith + proper repentance. At our church, the message is clear: justification is not contingent on regeneration. Our sacraments are effecacious: all who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

On removing a person from fellowship, both Christ and Paul said an unrepentant sinner must be removed. This is not limited to sexual sins. It is quite obvious the sins in question are made public and the party involved is recalcitrant.

Now for sins not repented, the Lord's Table offers the opportunity for each of us to examine ourselves to see if we are worthy to partake of the meal with the church.

In the case of public brazen unrepentant members, should the church offer communion to such members?


I am not familiar with what you mean by "proper repentance." However, repentance is mentioned as the response of those who heard and believed the Gospel.

Jesus required the apostles to teach a Gospel of salvation in His Name and repentance (Luke 24:46-47).

In Acts 2 Peter on the day of Pentecost called all those cut to the heart to repent believe on Jesus and be baptized.

In Acts 3 Peter confirms this message:
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: (Acts 3:19-20).

Paul indicates in 2 Corinthians 7: For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. (2 Corinthians 7:10)

I don't know how much your Lutheran church has departed from Luther, but Jesus says we must be born from above or what we usually call born again:

Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”(John 3:3)

Peter emphasizes this as well:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, (1 Peter 1:3)

Paul also mentions this to Titus:

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, (Titus 3:5).

I can provide more if you like.

It's God's job to save people, not mine. That is consistent with Lutheranism. Loving my neighbor means respecting their autonomy to live their own lives. Dictating how I think they should live would not be consistent with that.

And the NT is all about evangelism. The love expressed by godly people of the NT was to share the Gospel message of Christ crucified, His death and resurrection. That through this ultimate act of Love we can become sons and daughters of God and co-inheritors with Christ.

Jesus told quite a few parables reference seeding and the harvest. Jesus told His disciples “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.(Luke 10:2)

Paul picks up on this where he says: How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? (Romans 10:14-15)

I don't think I indicated that "we" save people. Show me where I said so. God calls and saves people. We are to be His messenger of the Good News.

 

[aiki]

Paul is engaged in a Jewish argument to show that Jews in fact are just as immoral as gentiles. He is not laying down a systematic sexual ethic.

I don't see this at all. What can you point to in the chapter in support of your assertion that Paul is engaged in an argument demonstrating Jews are as immoral as gentiles - especially in his particular line of thought that begins at verse 18 and continues to the chapter's end?

Paul does not lay down an entire system of sexual ethics in chapter 1 but his plain condemnation of homosexual behaviour in the chapter certainly ought to be included in any biblical system of sexual ethics.

The word "natural" (physis) that Paul uses can imply "custom", more than the sense I use the word natural (as in natural law), which refers to the ordering of the natural world. In this sense, homosexuality is very natural, appearing in numerous species besides humans.

The word rendered "natural" in English that Paul uses in Romans 1:26, 27 is "physikos" in Greek. According to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New and Old Testament Words, the term "physikos" means "according to nature." At best, "custom" might be a tertiary, not a primary, meaning.

I don't see how homosexual behaviour occurring widely in nature automatically means it is natural. In fact, if the natural biology of the various species is fundamentally driven by reproductive mechanisms (which it is), then homosexuality is highly unnatural or directly contrary to the purposes of these natural mechanisms. In any case, as far as I know, no creature outside of the human species is exclusively homosexual in its behaviour.

Animals also kill the young of their reproductive competitors, eat each other, forcibly copulate and engage in a variety of other "natural" behaviours. Ought we, therefore, to do the same? Should we take to killing the young of our neighbors, or forcibly copulating with one another? Obviously not.

 

[FireDragon76]

then homosexuality is highly unnatural or directly contrary to the purposes of these natural mechanisms.

That's the flawed, traditional Catholic argument. After all, most Protestants are OK with birth control and family planning, even though from the traditional Catholic standpoint, it is "contrary to nature". And I don't see most Protestants committed to Catholic moral theology.

Animals also kill the young of their reproductive competitors, eat each other, forcibly copulate and engage in a variety of other "natural" behaviours. Ought we, therefore, to do the same? Should we take to killing the young of our neighbors, or forcibly copulating with one another? Obviously not.

I'm not debating the morality in this instance, just whether or not homosexuality is natural. Homosexual pairing occurs in nature. Therefore, interpreting the Bible to say that Romans 1 is about the natural world and the "natural order" seems torturous. Why subject the Christian faith to that kind of brutality and potential scorn if we can avoid it?

 

[FireDragon76]

The most glaring problem with interpreting Romans 1 as being anti-gay is because Paul is describing people giving up natural for unnatural relations. A change of orientation. Yet the evidence is that, outside of bisexuals, sexual orientation does not change. Gays experience their orientation as not subject to change.

 

[redleghunter]

Our justification is not conditioned on our obedience to the law, that would be "confusing Law and Gospel" as we put it. Christ imputes to us his own righteousness but that doesn't mean our justification is conditioned on our "transformation". Evangelicals are big on the Gospel of personal transformation but I can't think of anything more un-Lutheran than the idea that Christianity is a bootstrap towards moral living.

If we love Christ we obey Him. Now we still war against the flesh, but we better be heading in the right direction.

We overcome our sinful nature by His Grace and by the light given to us.

No one is promoting sinless perfection here.

Justification is not conditioned on regeneration. Regeneration is what happens to those who as a damned and destitute sinner comes to Christ in repentance, trust and faith. By God's Grace.

2 Corinthians 5:17-21New King James Version (NKJV)
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

 

[aiki]

It's a story about rape. It's in no way comparable to two men living in a loving, lifelong covenanted relationship.

In no way comparable to a homosexual relationship? That's not what Scripture indicates:

Jude 1:7
7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

The rape the men of Sodom wanted to enact upon Lot's angelic guests was homosexual in its character. And Jude gives us cause to think this homosexuality (quite apart from rape) was a common practice in Sodom and Gomorrah. Insofar as the men of Sodom were "going after strange flesh" (aka. were engaging in homosexuality) their sexual behaviour has a direct parallel to the homosexual sex of two men living in a loving, life-long monogamous relationship.

[Staff edit].

 

[redleghunter]

Thing is, same sex relations are condemned, not chaste romantic attraction.

There are devoted Christians with SSA who do not have same sex relations. I fully acknowledged such.

 

[FireDragon76]

If we love Christ we obey Him.

And Jesus said nothing against homosexuality. So I don't see how I'm not obeying him on this point. The same is true with the gay Christians I know.

We overcome our sinful nature by His Grace and by the light given to us.

In this life we continue to be sinners. Every Sunday we confess that we are in bondage to sin and unable to free ourselves. We do not overcome anything: we remain sinners. We are justified, but still sinners.

No one is promoting sinless perfection here.

So why not extend the recognition that God does work in the lives of gay Christians just the same as he does in anybody else? We are all on a journey as Christians. Just because my journey or my gay neighbors journey does not look like yours is NOT a reason to assume we are not on the right path or that our church is no longer Christian. The Holy Spirit does not erase our individuality.

People have acussed me of arrogance before, but what I am talking about is the exact opposite of arrogance. It's being humble enough to let God the Holy Spirit be God.

 

[aiki]

The most glaring problem with interpreting Romans 1 as being anti-gay is because Paul is describing people giving up natural for unnatural relations. A change of orientation. Yet the evidence is that, outside of bisexuals, sexual orientation does not change. Gays experience their orientation as not subject to change.

Paul speaks of changed homosexuals in his letter to the Corinthians. Was he speaking falsely?

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 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 homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

[Staff edit].

 

[redleghunter]

no creature outside of the human species is exclusively homosexual in its behaviour.

Well Darwin would have something to say about this.

 

[redleghunter]

Therefore, interpreting the Bible to say that Romans 1 is about the natural world and the "natural order" seems torturous. Why subject the Christian faith to that kind of brutality and potential scorn if we can avoid it?

The fact is Paul in Romans 1 is using language from Genesis 1-3 where the natural and after the fall the unnatural is clearly revealed.

Again, the burden of proof is on your side of the argument as the natural order is defined in Genesis 1-2 and confirmed by Christ in Matthew 19.

I've posted this several times but it goes unchallenged.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well Darwin would have something to say about this.

Earthworms are by all definition, homosexual, since they all have the same sex. There are even species of lizards that are all gay... and they reproduce through parthenogenesis, even though they do engage in homosexual mating exclusively (so there's an example of a gay species right there - whiptail lizards and racerunners).

So I think God is very OK with gays, he's seemed to make a lot of them.

 

[redleghunter]

The most glaring problem with interpreting Romans 1 as being anti-gay is because Paul is describing people giving up natural for unnatural relations. A change of orientation. Yet the evidence is that, outside of bisexuals, sexual orientation does not change. Gays experience their orientation as not subject to change.

That would assume Paul had no idea about same sex attraction. Can you prove this?

 

[FireDragon76]

That would assume Paul had no idea about same sex attraction. Can you prove this?

Paul could not have understood sexual orientation as we do today. Paul is from a prescientific world, and homosexuality, as a stable sexual orientation really only became evident after the rise of scientific inquiry and the questioning of tradition. People in the prescientific western world assumed that homosexuality was due to excessive lust.

I'm not trying to argue the Bible says nothing against certain same-sex acts specifically. I'm trying to argue how we apply this as Christians is a more complicated issue than "the Bible says it, that settles it". The Bible is favorable towards slavery, yet today almost no Christians favor slavery and recognize it as immoral.

 

[aiki]

That's the flawed, traditional Catholic argument. After all, most Protestants are OK with birth control and family planning, even though from the traditional Catholic standpoint, it is "contrary to nature". And I don't see most Protestants committed to Catholic moral theology.

I'm not Catholic but it is simply silly to suggest sexual relations between married people is not about reproduction. Producing the next generation is very clearly the fundamental, God-intended purpose of human sexuality. This does not mean sex between a married couple cannot be engaged in purely for reasons of pleasure and intimacy. These are also important God-ordained aspects of human sexuality that can be enjoyed without aiming at pregnancy. But a heterosexual couple refraining from pregnancy is not at all like a homosexual couple whose relationship by its very nature defies and denies the divinely-established reproductive purpose of sex and marriage. Sally and Bob may leave off birth control and conceive but Harry and Joe cannot.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not Catholic but it is simply silly to suggest sexual relations between married people is not about reproduction. Producing the next generation is very clearly the fundamental, God-intended purpose of human sexuality. This does not mean sex between a married couple cannot be engaged in purely for reasons of pleasure and intimacy. These are also important God-ordained aspects of human sexuality that can be enjoyed without aiming at pregnancy. But a heterosexual couple refraining from pregnancy is not at all like a homosexual couple whose relationship by its very nature defies and denies the divinely-established reproductive purpose of sex and marriage. Sally and Bob may leave off birth control and conceive but Harry and Joe cannot.

You are engaging in essentialism. Who is to say what the nature of human pair bonding really is? Who has the last word on it? For many people , marriage is a financial arrangement. For some, they just want to avoid being lonely. All those are legitimate reasons to marry. Two people need not want or desire to have children for their covenanted relationship to be blessed by God.

 

[redleghunter]

And Jesus said nothing against homosexuality. So I don't see how I'm not obeying him on this point. The same is true with the gay Christians I know.

That is arguing from supposed silence. You know well God affirms His design for marriage in Matthew 19 when the subject of divorce is brought up. He first established what is was in the beginning and then confirms man should not interfere in His design.

Anything outside this design is generally called fornication which is defined as illicit sex.

Jesus did not address inappropriate behavior with animals, incest, and many other sexual sins. He did not because His audience knew the Law and He kept the Law.

In this life we continue to be sinners. Every Sunday we confess that we are in bondage to sin and unable to free ourselves. We do not overcome anything: we remain sinners. We are justified, but still sinners.

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. (Romans 12:2)

Romans 6: NKJV

6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

So why not extend the recognition that God does work in the lives of gay Christians just the same as he does in anybody else? We are all on a journey as Christians. Just because my journey or my gay neighbors journey does not look like yours is NOT a reason to assume we are not on the right path or that our church is no longer Christian. The Holy Spirit does not erase our individuality.

You do not view homosexual relations as sin. If a homosexual is convinced of your theology, they will live in their sin. That is a journey in opposition to what we are called to do.

There's a big difference between Christians who know their sin is wrong, struggle with it and by God's Grace are pointed in the right direction towards a desire to live pure lives which honor Christ:

1 Thessalonians 4: New King James Version (NKJV)

4 Finally then, brethren, we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus that you should abound more and more, just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God; 2 for you know what commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus.

3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified. 7 For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness. 8 Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit.

As I mentioned earlier. We are not perfect, but we must be honest and recognize our sins and be heading in the right direction (sanctification). Not accepting them.

 

[redleghunter]

Earthworms are by all definition, homosexual, since they all have the same sex. There are even species of lizards that are all gay... and they reproduce through parthenogenesis, even though they do engage in homosexual mating exclusively (so there's an example of a gay species right there - whiptail lizards and racerunners).

So I think God is very OK with gays, he's seemed to make a lot of them.

Earthworms are asexual.